Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — Trade

Air Fares (Europe)

Mr. Rhodes James: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress is being made to secure greater competition in the determination of air fares in Europe.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Reginald Eyre): We are making less progress than we would wish because many other European Governments wish to retain the present tightly regulated system and we can make progress only by agreement. But we support innovative fares proposed by British airlines; we refuse fare increases when we do not think them justified; and at our initiative the Commission is examining air fares in the Community, with a remit to report back to the Council of Transport Ministers.

Mr. Rhodes James: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the current level of standard air fares in Europe is ludicrously and unacceptably high in relation to other routes and is actively damaging to the increase of air traffic within Europe? Will he press this matter considerably further? What is wrong with further competition, particularly from the private sector, in order to improve the situation?

Mr. Eyre: We believe that major liberalising steps are needed, because air fares too often are too high. More innovative steps, such as lower standby fares and "mini-prix" fares, should be approved. Because of our international agreements, we cannot decide on the level of international fares without the agreement of the other Governments concerned.

Mr. Campell-Savours: Is it not true that there is a necessity to protect existing capacity within the European airlines, and that there is a relationship between the losses of British Airways and the attitude being taken by the Government on a free air policy?

Mr. Eyre: It is true that the world economic recession is adversely affecting the trade of British Airways and of other international airlines, but I emphasise that, against that background, our aim is to ensure that legitimate fares suit all categories of traveller. That is why my hon. Friend the former Under-Secretary of State is to be congratulated on his initiative in persuading the Commission to examine air fares in the Community and to report back.

Mr. Emery: Does my hon. Friend accept that the immense number of air tickets that are sold to what are termed "bucket shops" are in fact sold by the major airlines, including British Airways? In order to obtain a greater degree of competition, and to stop the aspect of illegality in this practice — which is frequently most welcomed by holidaymakers and travelers—should not the Government take a line and attempt to bring the whole "bucket shop" operation into a better perspective?

Mr. Eyre: I appreciate the practicality of my hon. Friend's question. I believe that he is right in his view of public opinion, but I have tried to emphasise that the agreement that is made for airline routes includes an agreement about fares. Airlines—or their agents—are required to charge approved fares. It is not possible for us to legalise illegally discounted tickets except by obtaining the agreement of our international partners to lower fares. That is why we are making efforts in that direction.

Mr. Neubert: However attractive and long overdue is the prospect of lower air fares in Europe, is my hon. Friend


entirely happy that British Airways should be embarked upon the present policy of matching the competition, whether legal or illegal, at a time when it is in such desperate trouble that it is having to borrow millions of pounds to pay its wages bill?

Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend has not fully understood the purpose of, for example, Sir Freddie Laker, where, when lower fares have been negotiated on, say, the North Atlantic run, the result has been to increase the market available and therefore to increase the number of passengers who are able to afford to travel.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter comes up again on question 14.

British Airports Authority

Mr. Bright: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied that the accounts of the British Airports Authority are as informative as those relating to similar international airports such as those of New York.

Mr. Eyre: They are much more informative.

Mr. Bright: In what way are the British Airports Authority's accounts more informative than those of other international airports.

Mr. Eyre: The annual report and accounts of the British Airports Authority have recently been commended by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. Few other major international airports appear to produce reports and accounts that are as informative. For example, no comparable financial information is provided for each of the individual airports under the control of the port of New York and New Jersey authority or l'Aeroport de Paris.

Air Traffic Control (Europe)

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied that Eurocontrol will be able to continue to discharge its responsibilities for air traffic control in Europe.

Mr. Eyre: Yes, Sir. The recently agreed arrangements for the future of Eurocontrol will result in a continuing high standard of air traffic control, but on a more cost-effective and efficient basis than hitherto.

Mr. Atkinson: In view of the frequent and widespread delays experienced by British and European tourists, is there any possibility of widening the membership of Eurocontrol to make it more effective over a wider area?

Mr. Eyre: The layout of routes must have regard to safety and the avoidance of areas set aside for military purposes. However, subject to, that, I accept the importance of my hon. Friend's point. There is a prospect of improving the service as a wider area of control is brought about.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that the operation of Eurocontrol compares unfavourably with air traffic control arrangements in the United States, in that the productivity of air traffic control to get aeroplanes in and out of various airports and air passages is less good than the American system?

Mr. Eyre: My noble Friend, who has responsibility for aviation matters will, I am sure, carefully consider the point.

Chemicals

Mr. Peter Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the balance of trade in chemicals for that part of 1980 for which he has figures as compared with the same period in previous years.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): In 1980 the United Kingdom had a crude surplus on trade in chemicals of £2,139 million, compared with surpluses of around £1,500 million in each of the two previous years.

Mr. Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that those are excellent results, for which the industry deserves high praise? However, does he also agree that such success is vulnerable to retaliation against any protective measures that we may take to assist parts of our home market that are facing competition from imports? Does he further agree that the success is vulnerable to competition from countries such as the United States, where fuel and other input costs are kept artificially low?

Mr. Parkinson: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes". The figures demonstrate that Britain, being extremely dependent on trade and access to other markets, has much to lose from the extension of widespread protectionism. I agree also with my hon. Friend's second point.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is the Minister aware that Graesser Salicylutes Limited, in my constituency suffered dozens of redundancies in 1980, largely due to the strength of the pound and the need for energy subsidies, as well as high interest rates? Is he further aware that that company has also been hit hard through the importation from the Chinese Republic of Paracetamol, which has given it financial headaches?

Mr. Parkinson: Individual British companies have been having a difficult time. However, our chemical industry has been much more successful in maintaining a larger share of other people's markets than they have been in maintaining the same share of ours.

Mr. Hardy: Energy price advantages in America have been mentioned. Does the Minister accept that the British chemical industry would pay £250 million less for its energy if the same prices applied as those in Germany and France?

Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a working party has been set up to establish the indisputable facts about the matter. There are as many opinions as there are people. We wish to get the right answer.

Aviation Security Levy

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he expects to be able to make any reduction in the costs of security provisions for airline passengers.

Mr. Eyre: My noble Friend does not propose to reduce the rate of the aviation security levy, but it will remain at its present level for the time being.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: To what extent does my hon. Friend consider that the charge of £4 for a round trip airline


ticket represents the true economic cost of providing airport security? Is he aware that airports other than those run by the British Airports Authority, which employ private security companies, need to charge rather less than 50 per cent. of that figure to cover their costs? In those circumstances, is it not high time that the Government either reconsidered the charges that the British Airports Authority is having to levy, or the security levy in general?

Mr. Eyre: I am sure that my noble Friend will consider those points carefully. Centralised searching at Heathrow terminal 3 should lead to staff reductions, and similar arrangements at Gatwick are being considered. That will help to keep down the cost of the searching process.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In view of the addition to costs and the disruption of services caused by the practice, always unnecessary, but quite unnecessary now, of flying British shuttle crews from Belfast to Glasgow every night so that they may escape the dangers to which 1½ million of their fellow citizens are exposed, will the Government take steps to bring the nonsense to an end, in everybody's interest?

Mr. Eyre: I shall ask my noble Friend to consider that. On the question of security costs generally, the answer is that the recent change made concerning flights to Northern Ireland has improved security and introduced greater convenience for passengers.

Mr. McCrindle: Why are there no plans to return those security tasks to private enterprise, bearing in mind the disproportionate rise in costs since the responsibility was passed to the British Airports Authority?

Mr. Eyre: The system of financing the security costs enables my Department to keep a closer check on the standard of security arrangements. However, I shall ask my noble Friend to consider that proposal carefully.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the Minister aware that the standards of training undertaken by virtually all private security companies before the changeover were grossly inadequate?

Mr. Eyre: I appreciate that a proper standard of skill is necessary, but it has been established widely at other airports. However, my noble Friend will certainly have regard to that matter.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister think very carefully before committing the country to a whole new range of para-police personnel, as one finds at the moment in America, where one tends to be searched and manhandled by almost anyone with a flash on his shoulder?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman's question goes far wider than the main question that I am answering—

Mr. Freud: No.

Mr. Eyre: The main question relates to important security matters concerning the safety of air passengers.

Regional Airports

Mr. Bowen Wells: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the implementation of his policy towards regional airports.

Mr. Eyre: I am never fully satisfied, but the substantial capital investment programme announced on 11

December, together with the progress we have made in promoting new air services to airports outside the London area, demonstrates our commitment to encouraging the fullest use of regional airports to meet local demand.

Mr. Wells: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he be more specific on the question of the transfer of charter traffic away from the principal airports in the South-East—Heathrow and Gatwick? What progress has he made in transferring major airlines from Heathrow to Gatwick, to make use of the unused facilities at Gatwick?

Mr. Eyre: I believe that my right hon. Friend's policy in encouraging regional airports gives substantial and welcome encouragement to the regional airports. I think that my hon. Friend will understand that the greatest growth is not necessarily in charter flights but in regular service flights with lower charges of the kind that I have mentioned. There has recently been an extension of the services that my hon. Friend asked about: for example, from Manchester to New York.

Mr. McNally: Will the Minister take this opportunity to congratulate Manchester international airport on topping the 4 million passenger mark last year, increasing its passenger input by 29 per cent. and its freight throughput by 12 per cent., and attracting 10 new airlines? Is not that proof that a vigorous regional airports policy can work both in taking the pressure off Heathrow and in developing the regions?

Mr. Eyre: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Manchester airport on its development. The Government will do everything possible to sustain that improvement by securing for Manchester extra services of the kind that I have given as an example.

Mr. Adley: I endorse my hon. Friend's comment that local demand should be the factor that determines the growth and size of an airport. Is he aware that many of the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) and for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), as well as many of mine, very much hope that he will keep a close watch on those who have a predatory eye on developing Hum airport? Will he acquaint himself with the Parley Lane situation, and recognise that he can help to make a name for himself in controlling Government expenditure by stopping this bit of nonsense?

Mr. Eyre: I am attracted by my hon. Friend's proposition. With my noble Friend, I shall look at the questions that he has raised.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister agree that this period of economic depression is the time when investment in our regional airports should be stepped up? In this connection, will he very much bear in mind Cardiff, Wales, airport?

Mr. Eyre: Unfortunately, Cardiff airport did not qualify on a regional or national basis to benefit from the schemes recently announced. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's general point, he will appreciate that the scheme for assisting the development of regional airports is a very useful form of economic activity at present.

Indonesia

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has had further discussions with representatives of the Indonesian Government concerning bilateral trade; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Parkinson: My right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State for Trade, at the invitation of the Indonesian Minister for Trade, visited Jakarta on 7 and 8 January. He discussed textile matters and wider bilateral trade issues with the President of Indonesia and several Indonesian Government Ministers. Quota levels were discussed at which the European Commission might reach agreement with Indonesia on the quantities of some Indonesian-made garments which might be imported into the United Kingdom in 1981. Normal trading between the United Kingdom and Indonesia has been resumed.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that statement. Does not this example of our recent relations with Indonesia serve as a warning to those hon. Members on both sides of the House who believe that there is some future in protectionist policies? Is it not now clear from this experience that the only way in which Britain will be successful is by manufacturing and selling to the best standards in the world?

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right. What comes out of this experience is that those who argue that we can protect our industries without expecting retaliation have been misleading themselves.

Mr. Straw: Why is the Minister giving a false impression about the facts of the Indonesian argument? Is it not the case that the dispute arose not out of a unilateral imposition of quotas by Britain, but out of a breach by Indonesia of a set of quotas previously agreed between Indonesia and the EEC, and that the message is that world trade will be disrupted if countries such as Indonesia break bilateral and multilateral agreements, on which the whole of world trade must depend?

Mr. Parkinson: It was precisely to establish that point that my right hon. Friend went to Indonesia. He pointed out to the Indonesians that we were not discriminating against them, but that they were one of 41 countries with which we had agreements and that we could not allow those agreements to be torn up unilaterally. However, it is a fact that my right hon. Friend negotiated levels of access for 1981 that are only two-thirds of those for 1980.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Until the Indonesian Government release their thousands of political prisoners and end their invasion of East Timor, will the British Government cease all supplies of arms and military equipment, including training aeroplanes, to that country?

Mr. Parkinson: I know that the hon. Gentleman has extremely strong views about these matters, but he tends to be rather selective in choosing when to assert them. I have never heard him suggest that we should in any way interfere with our trade with Eastern Europe, for instance, or withdraw our ambassadors, which has been the demand in other cases, because of abuse of human rights there. Certainly we deplore the abuse of human rights wherever it occurs, but we try to separate that and trade. If we were to introduce a political acceptability test for trade we should sell very little to anyone.

National Union of Townswomen's Guilds

Mr. Speller: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further references are being made to the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds.

Mr. McQuarrie: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has any plans to refer any matters to the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds.

The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim): On 20 November 1980 I sought the views of the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds on the scope and content of the consumer education pack which we are preparing for use in schools. It has expressed initial satisfaction and pleasure with my proposals in outline, and I await a more detailed response.

Mr. Speller: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the broadened base of consultation, but will she, while consulting the urban ladies, not omit the rural ladies of the women's institutes?

Mrs. Oppenheim: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I consulted the National Federation of Women's Institutes on children's reaction to advertising, and I recently received its report, which was extremely useful. I greatly value the extended communications that I have with the commonsense, grassroot opinions provided both by the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds and by the women's institutes.

Mr. Michael Brown: My right hon. Friend mentioned common sense in her discussions with the townswomen's guilds and the women's institutes. Did they offer her any common sense in the matter of the use of gallons or litres in the sale of petrol?

Mrs. Oppenheim: I have not made this reference to them, but I feel that I know what their views are. I should like to make the Government's position clear. The Government have not required the change. I personally regret it. During the passage of the Weights and Measures Bill under the previous Government I carried an amendment to exempt the statutory imposition of metrication where gallons were used. This is a purely technical matter that has arisen within the industry because of technical difficulties with petrol pumps. I regret that the change has been necessary, but I accept that it has. I personally shall select garages that still sell petrol by gallons, wherever that is possible.

Mr. John Fraser: Since the right hon. Lady measures her car's engine in litres, I do not see why she should object if other people tend to measure petrol in the same way. Can she enunciate her principles on consultation? Is she consulting one organisation on one order? Surely on a consumer education pack one should consult rather more widely than one institution.

Mrs. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman is right. I am consulting widely. The education pack, as he will recall from his own safety pratice, is not an order. It is an initiative of the Minister. I am consulting widely with all interested parties.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend agree with me that, to a certain extent, the discussion by petrol companies with regard to technical problems is a smokescreen, and that the petrol pump meters that exist at the moment could be used?

Mrs. Oppenheim: I know that this is my hon. Friend's view, which he has expressed to me on a number of occasions. It is not, however, the view of those involved in the technical production of the apparatus. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the increase in the price of petrol in recent years has produced difficulties for the mechanism of existing petrol pumps in keeping up with the increase. That is not only true in this country but also in the United States, where, by coincidence, the price of petrol is $1·30-something. The United States is also changing—I believe that it will regret doing so—to metrication.

Balance of Trade

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the United Kingdom balance of trade for 1980.

Mr. Parkinson: In 1980 the United Kingdom had a visible trade surplus of £1,039 million. The current account as a whole was in surplus by £2,281 million.

Mr. Chapman: I welcome those figures, but will my hon. Friend confirm that our trade with the industrialising non-OPEC countries is broadly in balance? If that is so, should we not be wary about trying to introduce import controls, as to do so would mean that many exporting industries in this country would suffer as a result of our efforts to overcome the problems that certain industries suffer at the moment?

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right. We had a small surplus with the countries about which he questioned me, but we had a substantial surplus on manufactures. They had a surplus with us on raw materials. It is a two-way trade, of strong benefit to us.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Do not these figures show that this country should be importing more rather than less? Will the Government consider advising Her Majesty to institute a new award for services to importing, to counterbalance and ridicule the award for services to exporting?

Mr. Parkinson: I very rarely hear the right hon. Gentleman make a remark that is not original. That suggestion was floated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) a few years ago—

Mr. Powell: He got it from me.

Mr. Parkinson: I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend did not reveal that fact when he reduced to laughter a Committee considering the Bill upstairs.
The right hon. Gentleman is right. This year our imports fell very substantially, and our exports more or less maintained themselves. Those who keep shouting for an extension of import controls should recognise that we would be the big sufferers if people outside this country took their advice.

Mr. Bulmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that our balance of trade with the United States would be more favourable if that country were not subsidising its energy costs? Has he any reason to think that the situation will change? If not, does he propose to take any fresh initiative on behalf of the British carpet industry?

Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend knows, I made a statement in the House in December. The following day,

I went to Brussels and persuaded the Council of Ministers to instruct the Commission to take up this matter with the Americans with a view to finding an answer to the problem. The Commission is committed to making a first report back at the February Council of Ministers. I shall keep the House in touch with developments.

Mr. John Smith: Is the Minister aware that there is outrage in many sections of British industry about the continued capacity of the United States to gain a cheap, unfair trading advantage by artificially low energy prices? This has reached the dimensions of a scandal, and it is time that the United Kingdom, with or without the co-operation of other countries in Western Europe that are affected, took a stand on the matter. Is the Minister aware that it is ominous that he used the words "first report" to the next Council of Ministers. Does he not feel that this matter will drag on for months, with no remedy for British industry, which is suffering as a result of an unfair policy?

Mr. Parkinson: It would have been unrealistic to expect a full and final report to be made to Council Ministers in February. President-elect Reagan and his Administration take office tomorrow. They will need time to consider the range of problems that they face. The Commission accepts the urgency of this matter and will press hard for an answer. One of the items that we seek is a deregulation of energy prices.

Milk

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he proposes to take any steps to determine whether the restrictions in competition in the sale of milk are beneficial to consumers.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Restrictions on competition are normally a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. I understand he is now considering whether to use his powers under the competition legislation over the supply of milk. If he does, then all aspects of the public interest will be taken into account in any subsequent investigation and recommendation.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Since the rise in the price of milk over the past 12 months has been higher than the current rate of inflation, have the Government given any consideration to the free importation of milk? Or would that lead to the end of doorstep deliveries?

Mrs. Oppenheim: This is obviously a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The question of the ending of doorstep selling would be in the forefront of the mind of anyone considering any references on milk prices, milk availability and the price of milk in supermarkets. That is one side of the public interest, and it must be considered equally with the other side of that public interest.

Mr. Dubs: Cart the Minister give the House a better reassurance? Does she not agree that the vast majority of people in this country think it essential that doorstep deliveries should continue? May we have a clear statement from the Government that they will do all that is possible to protect those deliveries?

Mrs. Oppenheim: I think that the hon. Gentleman is probably right and that a majority of people would prefer the continuance of at least a partial, if not an entire, doorstep delivery service. No doubt the Director General


of Fair Trading will bear that in mind. If he makes a reference, the public interest and, indeed, public opinion will be a matter for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to consider in making its final report and recommendations. The criteria of the legislation are drafted in such a way that the Commission must take note, in its final recommendations, of all aspects of the public interest.

Mr. John Fraser: Does the right hon. Lady recognise that the pure pursuit of competition can sometimes have adverse effects and put up prices? Estate agents' fees are an example of that. The ending of doorstep deliveries would rob us of a cheap source of protein and would only build up a surplus inside the EEC, to which we have to contribute.

Mrs. Oppenheim: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows—I am not accusing him of being disingenuous—one of the purposes of the Competition Act is to deal with distortions in competitions of this nature. The whole question of the doorstep delivery of milk is important. I believe that it affects a majority of consumers in this country. There is no question of its being abolished. The Government's position is clear, namely, the Government will follow whatever course is the public interest. Other distortions of competition are matters for the Director General to pursue under the Competition Act.

Air Transport

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the existing arrangements for considering the interests of users of air transport.

Mr. Eyre: Broadly, yes. However, I should like to see closer co-operation between the air transport users committee and the airport consultative committees at Heathrow and Gatwick. My Department is currently discussing with the interested parties how this can be accomplished.

Mr. McCrindle: I welcome the existence of the air transport users committee, but will the Minister consider separating it from the Civil Aviation Authority and giving it its own budget? Would that not have enabled it to criticise the decision of the CAA to veto the plan by TWA to fly children free across the Atlantic when two adults were flying? Was that not an innovative and competitive move? Would not the move that I suggest enable the representatives of the passenger to criticise such an uncompetitive reaction from the CAA?

Mr. Eyre: I regret that I have not yet had the opportunity to study the affairs of the air transport users committee to an extent that would enable me to give a full reply to my hon. Friend. I shall write to him on these matters.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend look at the Treaty of Rome to satisfy himself that it makes no exemptions for air transport and that restrictions in terms of both frequency and ticket pricing within Europe among EEC members are direct violations of the treaty? Having satisfied himself on that, will he set in motion the necessary corrective action?

Mr. Eyre: I always start by indicating my respect for the constitutional opinions advanced by my hon. Friend. However, the application of the Treaty of Rome to air

transport has never been tested in the courts. Until the issue is resolved in that or some other way, it is not clear exactly what are the implications of the treaty for air transport. It is for that reason that Ministers are seeking to make progress, along the lines that I have indicated, by way of agreement.

Mr. Clinton Davis: May I return to the original question? Will the Minister consider most carefully the independence of this body? Is he aware that there is a strong argument that because it is associated with the Civil Aviation Authority it lacks the independence that it should have?

Mr. Eyre: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for emphasising that point. I assure him that serious attention will be given to it.

Mr. Michael Brown: Does my hon. Friend not think it wrong that when an airline can no longer continue to operate a service for financial or other reasons—that being the case between Humberside and Heathrow—it can continue to hold a licence, thereby preventing, without application to the CAA, another airline from seeking to operate that service when it is financially competent so to do?

Mr. Eyre: I have not heard of difficulty in that respect. If my hon. Friend would be good enough to give me a note of the circumstances that he has in mind, I know that my noble Friend would want to consider the issue carefully.

Advertising Control

Mr. Waller: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what response has been made to the working party report on advertising control.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: We are considering the working party's recommendations and will announce our conclusions in due course.

Mr. Waller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the circumstances in which it would be necessary for the Director-General of Fair Trading to apply to a court to have an advertisement banned before it appears, would be so rare that it seems unnecessary to have such legislation? Should we not give up trying to comply with the EEC draft directive and instead rely on the good sense of the advertising industry, which has proved quite adequate until now?

Mrs. Oppenheim: Work on the proposed Community directive on misleading and unfair advertising, which has been temporarily suspended, will resume in Brussels early this year. That will have to take account of the special features in our system. Our legal and voluntary regime works well on the whole, and we should not wish to do anything to undermine it.

Mr. Hooley: Is the right hon. Lady aware that it is not control that is required for alcohol and tobacco, but total abolition?

Mrs. Oppenheim: That is a matter for others of my right hon. Friends.

Company Shares (Purchase)

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what reactions have so far been received to the consultative document on the purchase by a company of its own shares.

Mr. Eyre: Very full and favourable. In the light of these reactions, my right hon. Friend told the House on 18 December of the Government's intention to deal with this in the next Companies Bill.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: May I assure my hon. Friend that his response will be widely welcomed in industry and in the City, bearing in mind the great success of this measure in the United States? Have we an understanding that such a provision will be introduced in the next Companies Bill? If it is introduced, it will be met with considerable approval in industry.

Mr. Eyre: I appreciate the importance that my hon. Friend attaches to the issue. Subject to appropriate safeguards, we see no reason why company law should prohibit any class of company from buying its own shares. That is permissible in many other countries, and I confirm that it is our intention to include a provision to that effect in the next Companies Bill.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Bearing in mind that the Companies Bill is not contentious in party political terms, will the Minister reconsider the decision that he announced previously, that he would not publish draft clauses prior to the introduction of the Bill? Is he aware that the precedents for publication were widely welcomed not only by the financial press, but by many other experts, and that it is a useful way of ensuring that matters are debated by those who are experts, rather than just having a debate in the House of Commons after publication of the Bill?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of consultation on technical clauses whenever possible and whenever time permits. Indeed, that would be our wish. As he knows, wherever possible there has been a good deal of consultation on draft clauses. However, we shall very soon be in a position to publish the Bill.

European Community (Balance of Trade)

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will list figures illustrating the balance of trade of each member State of the European Community with non-European Economic Community Countries and with each other for the last five years.

Crude Trade Balances of the European Community Countries with the Community and the Rest of the World


£ Billion



United kingdom
Belgium/Luxembourg
Denmark
France
Federal Republic of Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands


Crude Balance of Trade with the Community


1975
-2·3
-0·1
-0·4
-0·3
+1·2
-0·5
-0·0
-0·2
+2·5


1976
-2·1
+0·2
-1·0
-1·9
+2·4
-0·6
-0·2
-0·5
+4·1


1977
-1·9
-0·2
-1·1
-1·5
+2·5
-0·9
-0·2
-0·6
+3·4


1978
-2·4
-0·6
-0·9
-0·9
+3·1
-0·9
-0·3
+1·2
+2·7


1979
-2·9
+0·2
-1·0
-0·5
+3·0
-1·1
-0·7
-0·9
+3·9


1980
+0·1
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a

Mr. Parkinson: Full information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I am therefore making available certain summary statistics. As even this involves the provision of 92 separate figures, with permission I will publish them in the Official Report.

Mr. Marlow: The public are quite rightly very interested in a proper perspective of our trade with Europe. As one-fifth of our exports to Europe are in terms of oil, can my hon. Friend say to what extent they arise out of our membership of the Community and to what extent they arise purely out of factors of geology and geography? If we were to subtract this trade in oil, what would be the true position of our trade with Europe, and what would be the implications of that?

Mr. Parkinson: I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that the figures that will be published in the Official Report do not include the figures that he has requested. Our exports of manufactures to the EEC have been increasing dramatically, and this year they covered 90 per cent. of our imports in manufactures, as opposed to 84 per cent. a year before. Our trade with Europe in manufactures is our fastest growing area for trade in such goods. My hon. Friend need not be quite so obsessive about oil.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) disappears under the mound of statistics that he has invoked, will my hon. Friend explain to him that our trading difficulties do not arise in any way from our membership of the EEC and would not in any be facilitated by turning the EEC into a free trade area, as a good many seem to want? On the contrary, the fault lies in ourselves and in the uncompetitiveness of British industry.

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right in saying that withdrawal from the EEC would be a disaster for many British companies which have been reorientating their trade towards the EEC, and which would find themselves having to send in those exports over a tariff barrier which they do not have to do now. I hope that Labour Members who argue the case for withdrawal will spell out to the electorate the full details and consequences of withdrawal.

Mr. Squire: Will my hon. Friend point out that the oil companies provide employment in Britain, and that it makes no more sense to exclude oil figures than it does to exclude the figures of other industries where we are perhaps less successful?

Mr. Parkinson: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Following is the information:

United kingdom
Belgium/Luxembourg
Denmark
France
Federal Republic of Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands


Crude Balance of Trade with the Community


1975
-1·9
-0·6
-0·4
-0·6
+5·9
-0·9
-0·2
-1·2
-2·2


1976
-3·3
-1·6
-0·9
-2·8
+5·4
-1·3
-0·3
-2·7
-3·7


1977
-1·8
-1·3
-0·8
-2·5
+7·3
-1·4
-0·4
-1·5
-4·4


1978
-1·2
-1·2
-0·7
-1·9
+8·1
-1·4
-0·4
-0·3
-4·2


1979
-2·7
-2·1
-0·9
-3·6
+3·4
-1·6
-0·6
-2·4
-5·6


1980
-2·2
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.


n.a. not available


Sources:


UNITED KINGDOM: United Kingdom Trade with European Countries December 1979 and September 1980 and latest Press Notice


OTHERS: OECD 'Series B'; OECD 'Series C' Microfiche (for 1979)

Manufactured Goods

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what were the values of exported manufactured goods during each of the past four years; and what are the corresponding figures for imported manufactured goods.

Mr. Parkinson: Figures on the preferred balance of payments basis are available only for the first three quarters of 1980. These show exports of manufactures at £26·3 billion and imports at £22·8 billion. With permission, I will circulate the rest of the information in the Official Report.

Mr. Wainwright: Has the Minister taken into account the fact that there is a surplus in our manufacturing industry, and that we have over 2 million unemployed? What new ideas is he promoting to encourage our manufacturing industry further to export? Will he take another look at the import system? We have a surplus of coal, textiles and boots and shoes, and imports are coming into Britain in greater quantities than are required. Do we not have greater facilities than we need for importing—facilities that are greater than those for exporting?

Mr. Parkinson: The figures that I have given the hon. Gentleman in answer to his original question are a bad basis for the assertions that he has made. Last year we sold to the rest of the world £3,500 million-worth more of manufactures than we bought. If we did as the hon. Gentleman suggests or implies and started to stop the flow of exports into Britain other countries would do the same, and as we have a surplus we should be the losers.

Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, pound for pound, and job for job, the service sector is every bit as important as manufacturing industry? As his is the sponsoring Department will he say whether he has seen the recommendation sent today to the Treasury by the chairman of the British Tourist Authority? Will he consider it and make sure that he supports it?

Mr. Parkinson: I have not seen that document. I am not prepared to commit myself to supporting it before I have seen it. I usually work on the principle — as do most Ministers — that if something is good enough for my hon. Friend to associate himself with it, it is probably good enough for me.

Following is the information:



United Kingdom Visible Trade in Manufactures



Exports
Bop basic £ billion Imports


1977
25·6
19·7


1978
27·7
22·7


1979
31·0
28·2

Note: Figures are given on the preferred balance of payments basis, in which the coverage and valuation of exports and imports are the same.

Oral Answers to Questions — Overseas Development

Ghana

Mr. Deakins: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is satisfied with the level of United Kingdom aid to Ghana.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Neil Marten): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Deakins: Is that Minister aware the Ghana is one of the poorest countries in the Commonwealth? Is he further aware that it has a young and democratic Government, who will be judged in a few years time on the basis of their economic performance? Will he seek to do even more than he has done already to ensure the survival of democracy in that poor Commonwealth country?

Mr. Marten: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. When resources are available I hope to do as he suggests.

Mr. Speller: I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins). However, is my hon. Friend aware that many of us feel that when giving aid to countries such as Ghana it is advisable, to a large extent, to attempt to tie that aid to the products of British industry? Is he further aware that, following a recent visit, it has become clear that whereas many nations giving aid tie it specifically to their own products, we have been generous in the extreme and our money is being used to make purchases elsewhere?

Mr. Marten: I disagree with my hon. Friend. A great part of our bilateral aid is tied to British exports.

Mr. McElhone: Does the Minister recall that he recently told the Royal Commonwealth Society that his priority was aid to the poorest countries, especially Commonwealth countries? How does he justify the massive 34 per cent. cut in aid to India between September 1979 and 1980? Is that not another case of double standards from the Government?

Mr. Marten: I regret that this question is about Ghana, not India.

Zimbabwe

Mr. Canavan: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will increase the amount of aid to Zimbabwe.

Mr. Neil Marten: A substantial programme of aid to Zimbabwe over the next three years is well under way. It is too soon to say what we might do in the future.

Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister agree that we have a duty to give more aid to Zimbabwe because Britain exploited that country and its people for generations? If the British Government are hard up, why not place an expropriation order on the wealth and property of people such as the Duke of Montrose? Is the Minister aware that he left his son in charge of more than 8,000 acres of land in my constituency while he deserted to Rhodesia to collaborate with the traitor Smith, and then returned to Britain scot-free to take an oath of allegiance in another place?

Mr. Marten: I do not agree with the basis of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I shall endeavour to make my question a little more relevant than that asked by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). Is my hon. Friend aware that Zimbabwe needs people with expertise—technicians and people with other skills? Is he further aware that Britain has a surplus of technicians and people with skills? Will he establish a special programme to encourage people to work under contract for the Government of Zimbabwe, backed by my hon. Friend's Department?

Mr. Marten: It is for the Zimbabwe Government to make a request for expertise. We have already sent many people to Zimbabwe. A donors' conference is to be held in March, when no doubt a shopping list of requests will be produced.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Does the Minister realise that the current level of white emigration from Zimbabwe—I do not necessarily refer to emigration to another place—coupled with the reluctance of the banks to indulge in capital investment in Zimbabwe, could result in a serious economic and financial position for Zimbabwe this year?

Mr. Marten: I suppose that that could happen, but we have done a great deal to help Zimbabwe. We have forgiven £20 million of debt and rescheduled the remainder of the debt that is owing to Britain. We are doing what we can to help.

Later—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not contrary to the practice of this House to attack the character or motives of Members of another place?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is right. I listened carefully, and on balance I thought that the Member of the other place would not have thought much of the attack.

Institute of Development Studies

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals he has for continuing financial support at a reduced level to the Institute of Development Studies.

Mr. Neil Marten: For the academic year beginning 1 August the Government intend to provide, in 1981, £895,000, in 1982, £820,000 and in each of the years 1983 to 1985, £755,000, at January 1980 prices.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to congratulate him and his right hon. noble Friend the Foreign Secretary on the part that they played in persuading the Government to reverse their earlier decision to phase out support for the next quinquennium?

Mr. Neil Marten: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Equally, the Institute of Development Studies should congratulate my hon. Friend on all the hard work that he has contributed to that satisfactory solution.

European Development Fund

Mr. McElhone: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is prepared to open consultations with the EEC on the European development fund.

Mr. Marten: We already keep in close touch on all important issues with the Commission and other member States, both informally and through the appropriate machinery which deals with the fund.

Mr. McElhone: Is the Minister aware that on several occasions I have strongly criticised the operation of the European development fund? Is he further aware that I have been informed that the European Court of Auditors has also strongly criticised the operation of that fund? When will he take a stand against that disorganised bureaucracy in Brussels?

Mr. Marten: We take a constant stand on that issue. We work closely with the Community to ensure that the aid produced by the European development fund is used properly for the best interests of the developing world.

Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware that the money being distributed by the EEC invariably goes to countries that have not been directly connected with Britain or the Commonwealth? As this is a natural growth area in future years, through the EEC, does the Minister think that there should be more consultation to ensure a better and further distribution of money?

Mr. Marten: Yes, but the position is improving. There has been some criticism that too much money has gone to the Francophone countries. The tropical Africa advisory group of the British Overseas Trade Board recently examined that question and concluded that the main reasons were unfamiliarity of British firms with the European development fund, lack of interest in smaller contracts and an unwillingness to launch into new markets. The ball is very much in the court of British industry to seek out the opportunities.

Energy Resources

Mr. Hooley: asked the Lord Privy Seal what will be the approximate disbursements of official aid in the


current financial year for development of energy resources as between coal, oil, gas, nuclear and renewable sources of energy.

Mr. Neil Marten: Details of expenditure for the current financial year are not yet available.

Mr. Hooley: Does the Minister agree that developing countries with few or no assets in the form of hydrocarbons could find that renewable sources are extremely important, namely, solar, wind and tidal power? Will he give an assurance that that will be reflected in the balance of the aid programme that relates to energy help?

Mr. Marten: I think that that will be the case. Disbursements of project aid on energy projects in 1979 amounted to £34 million, about three-quarters of which went to non-renewable power projects, and the remainder to renewable projects. I hope that that will continue.

World Food Programme

Mr. Hardy: asked the Lord Privy Seal what contribution will be made by the United Kingdom to the world food programme in 1981–82; and what contribution is being made in the current year.

Mr. Neil Marten: For 1981–82 no decision has yet been taken. In this financial year we are contributing about £4·2 million in cash and commodities from our pledge for the biennium 1979–80. On top of this we are supplying 50,000 tonnes of cereals to the world food programme's regular activities, 30,000 tonnes to Africa under the international emergency food reserve and £350,000 to the programme for 20 lorries.

Mr. Hardy: Is it not a fact that in the current year our contribution is a great deal less than that of most countries in Western Europe, and that unless that position improves and a substantial amount of support is given in 1981–82 the description of "shameful" will be justified?

Mr. Marten: I do not agree with that. The final figure has not yet been agreed. The hon. Gentleman will be made aware of it when it is agreed, and I think that it will be satisfactory.

Departmental Studies

Mr. Spearing: asked the Lord Privy Seal what the most recent studies of the rural development section of the Overseas Development Administration have been.

Mr. Neil Marten: Three papers for the world conference on agrarian reform and rural development in 1979, and a paper for the Commonwealth Secretariat in November last.

Mr. Spearing: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sorry that he did not mention the topics of the papers. Can he assure the House that this unit will examine specific examples, rather than generalities?

Mr. Marten: I think that it will examine specific examples, because each country section has now taken the whole concept of rural development on board and a separate administrative unit is no longer necessary. It is widespread throughout the ODA.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Are the studies to be published?

Mr. Marten: The three papers for the world conference on agrarian reform and rural development have been published. I assume that the Commonwealth Secretariat paper has also been published.

BILL PRESENTED

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT 1867 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop presented a Bill to transfer from the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Parliament of Canada the function of tendering to the Queen's most Excellent Majesty advice and consent in respect of any Bills amending the provisions of the British North America Act 1867, and amendments thereto in subsequent Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 February and to be printed. [Bill 46.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &amp;c

Ordered,
That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) (No. 2) Regulations 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Orders of the Day — Criminal Attempts Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I welcome the opportunity to bring the Bill before the House today. It makes a number of significant changes in the criminal law which I believe will be generally welcomed. Most notably, it repeals the much criticised suspected persons offence, commonly known as "sus". What may be less generally appreciated but which arguably is of much greater significance is that the Bill also codifies and reforms the present common law of attempt. I shall come to the links between these matters in due course.
First, I should like to acknowledge the debt that the Bill owes to the work of two bodies—the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Law Commission. As the House will recall, the Select Committee produced a report in May last year recommending the immediate repeal of "sus". It produced a second report in August criticising me for delaying the implementation of that recommendation. The inclusion in the Bill of a provision to repeal the offence obviously owes a great deal to the Committee's report.
The Bill also owes a great deal to the work of the Law Commission. Its report on "Attempt, and Impossibility in relation to Attempt, Conspiracy and Incitement" forms the basis of the provision on the law of attempt. That report continued the valuable examination which the Law Commission is making of parts of the common law with a view to enactment in statutory form. The report was a result of many years study by the Law Commission of an important and fairly technical area of the law. We are greatly in its debt.
It might assist the House if I were to say a little more at this point about the reasons for the Government's decision to repeal "sus" and in doing so to explain the relevance of the Bill's other provisions. I made clear in the debate on 5 June on the Select Committee's report that the Government intended to consider seriously the Committee's recommendation that "sus" should be repealed. Indeed, I accepted that it had established a clear case for making changes in the law. I also made it plain that, in my view, it would not be sufficient to repeal "sus" only to replace it by a similar offence in modern dress.
The Select Committee considered the offence to be objectionable in principle. It argued that it carried inherently a grave risk that innocent persons could be convicted on the basis of actions which were criminal but in respect of which criminal intent could be imputed. That view was expressed by many who gave evidence to the Committee.
I emphasise two points. The Committee did not find any evidence that the police—as has been alleged—used the offence in a discriminatory fashion. Indeed, the Committee said clearly in its report that it did not believe that "sus" had been
used by the Metropolitan police with a deliberate racial bias".
Secondly, in spite of the detrimental effect which the offence has undoubtedly had on relations between the

police and the ethnic minorities, the Committee made it quite clear that it would not have regarded this as sufficient reason for recommending repeal of the offence if it had considered such an offence to be necessary. I accept that there is a good deal of force in the criticisms which have been made of the offence. I also recognise that there are those, including my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), who do not share these views. But I believe that the offence has become so widely mistrusted that it is really now in everybody's interest that it should be repealed.
I should like to make it clear that in reaching this decision I have given the most careful consideration to the views of those who have urged that the offence should be retained. I recognise that a number of police forces have found "sus" useful in enabling them to intervene before crimes have actually been committed. I therefore understand the concern which has been expressed by some about the adequacy of police powers to deal with street crime once "sus" is repealed.
It would be naive and wrong, I believe, to pretend that there have not been instances in which "sus" has served a useful purpose and would do so again if it were preserved. But I also believe that there has been a tendency among some supporters of the offence to exaggerate both the overal contribution which "sus" has made in preventing crime and, hand in hand with this, to give too little weight to the other powers which the police have at their disposal.
It is worth repeating at this point that the number of persons proceeded against for "sus" is relatively small—fewer than 3,000 in 1979—and that many forces hardly use the offence at all. These facts cannot be reconciled with the view that—as some would appear to have us believe—"sus" represents the only barrier against a massive increase in street crime.
What are the other measures which the police can take? Obviously, this must depend on the circumstances of each case. In some instances it may be sufficient simply to make it clear that the person who is the object of suspicion is being observed. In other cases the police can continue discreet observation until the point is reached at which intervention is called for. Where a constable has reasonable cause to suspect that an arrestable offence—which includes theft—is about to be committed he has the power to arrest without warrant the person concerned. If the action is sufficiently far advanced to constitute the commission of an offence or an attempt to commit an offence the appropriate charge can then be laid. In other cases a warning might be given.
There are also a number of other possible preventive measures, such as the common law power of arrest on reasonable suspicion of a breach of the peace and a power to arrest a person found on enclosed premises. I think that it will be clear even from this brief, and by no means complete, summary of the courses open to the police when they see a person acting suspiciously that it is not the case that the repeal of "sus" will leave the police powerless in such situations.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman add to that list something that might be very useful with juveniles? When a person is suspected of being about to commit an offence, if the parents are advised of


the suspicious behaviour of the child, it might bring them on to the side of the law instead of alienating them, as has happened in the past.

Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in one respect, while obviously wanting to consider the details, but anything that involves the parents in the way suggested must be something that this House would thoroughly welcome.
Having carefully considered the balance that has to be made, the Government do not believe that the objections to "sus" are outweighed by the arguments about the offence as a crime prevention measure. I made it plain, however, in the debate which took place last June that the Government could not agree to the repeal of the offence without considering the possible need for other measures to fill particular limited gaps in the law which might be left by repeal.
The Select Committee acknowledged that difficulties could arise in some cases in charging attempted theft, but it considered these to be technical difficulties only. It expressed confidence that the Law Commission's report—which had not then been published—would provide a solution.
The Committee had two particular situations in mind: first, if somebody tampers with a parked car; secondly, if somebody attempts to steal from a pocket which turns out to be empty. In both instances, "sus" may at present be used to make up for deficiencies in the law of attempt. I was able to tell the House, in the debate to which I have referred, that while the Law Commission's proposals would enable a charge of attempted theft to be brought in the empty pocket case they would be unlikely to have any appreciable effect on cases involving interference with parked motor vehicles.
The difficulty which can arise in cases of the latter kind that it is not always clear precisely what the person intends to do. He may have it in mind to steal the car or its contents, or to take it and drive it away. This difficulty is compounded by the requirement, under the present common law of attempt, that the defendant's actions must be sufficiently close to whatever offence it was that he intended to commit. The Law Commission's proposals do not ease the difficulties concerning the defendant's intention in these circumstances, nor do they remove the need to prove that his actions are sufficiently close to the full offence to constitute an attempt.
The Select Committee pointed out that "sus" is often used in these circumstances. It is the Government's view that unless other measures are taken the repeal of "sus" would significantly weaken the ability of the law to deal with behaviour of this kind. Clause 9 of the Bill therefore provides for a new offence of unlawful interference with vehicles in a public place.
I have seen it suggested that the proposed offence is simply "sus" in another form. I cannot accept this for one moment. It is in no sense a catch-all provision. By contrast with "sus", where an undefined range of suspicious conduct is penalised, the new offence is concerned only with overt acts of interference with motor vehicles.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In intervening, may I first say that my right hon. Friend has in every sense delivered what he promised to deliver? Will

clause 9 allow the defence that a man was seeking to get into the motor vehicle only because he wanted to sleep there?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure that I would be wise to leave the answer to that question to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who will no doubt deal with it in his reply.
The other gap in the law which the Select Committee mentioned—concerning attempts to steal from empty pockets—brings me to the links between the repeal of "sus" and the provisions in part I of this Bill concerning the law of attempt. The repeal of "sus" has, of course, given an added dimension to the Law Commission's report. But, even without this, the Law Commission's proposals would have demanded prompt attention.
Quite apart from their significance in the process of codifying parts of the common law, the proposals offer much-needed clarification and reform. In particular, the difficulty concerning attempts to steal from empty pockets is but one example of a wider problem concerning what are known as "impossible attempts". I hope that one result of setting these matters out clearly in statutory form will be to remove some of the general uncertainty which may have encouraged the use of "sus" when attempted offences might have been charged instead.
It may be helpful at this point to describe, clause by clause, the main features of this part of the Bill. Clause 1 is the heart of these provisions and I hope, therefore, that the House will bear with me if I explain its purpose in some detail. Subsection (1) defines the mental element and the conduct which are necessary to constitute an attempt to commit an offence. The mental element is defined as an
intent to commit an offence to which this section applies".
This reproduces the wording in the Law Commission's draft Bill and is intended, as the Law Commission made clear, to make no change in the position under the present common law. The conduct which constitutes an attempt is defined as
an act which goes so far towards the commission of that offence as to be more than a merely preparatory act".
This again follows exactly the wording recommended by the Law Commission and is similarly not intended to mark any change of substance in the present requirement of proximity at common law.
Subsections (2) and (3) in clause 1 are concerned with the vexed problem of impossible attempts. The House will understand that it is with some trepidation that I venture on to a field which I am aware has been much fought over by eminent practitioners in, and commentators on, the law. Indeed, I fear that I may be at some risk of attempting the impossible myself. However, I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend, whom I am most grateful to have beside me, will be able to comment later on any specific points that hon. Members may wish to raise. I shall content myself, therefore, with trying to explain as clearly as I can what the provisions in question are designed to achieve—since I know that some at least will wish to question the policy which they embody—and why they take the form they do. Perhaps I should indicate at this point that the Government, in the new procedure, which I understand will apply to the Bill, and in subsequent Committee stages, will be only too ready to discuss in detail and perhaps make changes in regard to these very complicated parts of the law.
There may be a number of reasons why it is impossible for a person in a given situation to fulfil his criminal


purpose. The means that he employs may be inadequate. For example, the gun that the would-be murderer uses may have too short a range. It has never been seriously disputed that in such cases the defendant should be liable to be convicted of attempting to commit the offence. In some other cases—often termed cases of "factual impossibility"—impossibility may stem from the fact that the object of the offence does not exist or is not present. For example, the pocket which the pickpocket puts his hand into may be empty or, unknown to the would-be thief, the item which he proposes to steal may have been removed.
Before the decision in another place in the case of Haughton v Smith, it had been accepted that a person could be convicted of an attempted offence in such cases. But the dicta in that case were to the contrary, and that is now the position under the present common law. This aspect of the decision in particular has been heavily criticised and the Law Commission was in no doubt—and neither are the Government—that the position prior to Haughton v Smith should be restored. Clause 1(2) therefore provides that a person may be guilty of attempt notwithstanding that some fact exists which renders commission of the full offence impossible.
A third and even more disputed category of impossible attempts is that in which some essential ingredient specified in the definition of the full offence is lacking. Even if the person concerned completed what he thought he was doing, he would not actually commit the full offence. The sort of case in question may be a little clearer if I give a few examples.
There is the would-be receiver—the person who handles or attempts to handle goods in the mistaken belief that they are stolen. Those are the bare facts of Haughton v. Smith.
Another example is the youth who has or attempts to have sexual intercourse with a girl aged 16, in the mistaken belief that she is under age, or the man who goes through a marriage ceremony in the mistaken belief that he is still married in law to his first wife, who, unknown to him, has died.
Before Haughton v. Smith it was not entirely clear whether a charge of attempt lay in such cases. The decision confirmed that it did not. The Law Commission, however, came to the conclusion that such cases should be brought within the ambit of attempt. Its reasons are set out in its report. But I think it is fair to say that it believed this outcome right, not only on its merits but because it was wary of trying to draft difficult distinctions between the different kinds of impossibility I have mentioned.
We have given a great deal of thought to the policy which should be adopted in relation to cases of this kind. The differing views held by those who have long studied these questions suggest that it is a matter about which it is perfectly possible for reasonable men, and so, of course, for lawyers, to disagree. I do not believe that there is a correct answer, in the sense that one view is indisputably right. Clearly there are cases—and Haughton v. Smith is a good example—in which one would feel that justice had not been ill served if those concerned had been convicted of an offence. But should it be of a criminal attempt? Equally there are cases in which it would seem unreasonable that a person should even be exposed to the risk of such proceedings, let alone prosecuted.
But I have found myself coming back each time to the following considerations. I am not convinced that it is

right to use the law of attempt to extend criminal offences so as to cover behaviour which it is far from certain that Parliament intended to be covered when those offences were drawn up. For example, the offence of handling stolen goods requires that there should be stolen goods. Parliament has not yet said that there would be an offence of handling if a person merely mistakenly believed that there were stolen goods.
I also have sympathy with the view that such an extension is objectionable on grounds of logic and language. Is it not really a distortion of the concept of attempt to extend it to cases where a person not merely tries to do but succeeds in doing what he intended? For example, is it sensible to hold that a person should be liable to a charge of attempting to have sexual intercourse with a girl under age when he has succeeded in having intercourse with a girl who is above the age of consent?
While recognising the difficulties which this involves, the Government have nevertheless concluded that it is desirable to draw a distinction between this species of impossible attempt and those attempts with which subsection (2) is concerned. Clause 1(3) therefore seeks to exclude from the ambit of attempt cases in which the result which a person intends to achieve by his act—for example, handling particular goods or having sexual intercourse with a particular girl—is such that no offence would be committed if he achieved that result. As will be clear, these matters are not straightforward and the Government will welcome the close scrutiny which will undoubtedly be given to these subsections during the Bill's passage.
Clause 2 introduces a refinement into the definition of the mental element. It is necessary, we believe, to deal properly with those offences whose definition requires both that some act is done by the defendant and that some specified state of affairs exists. For instance, the crime of rape requires both that the defendant has sexual intercourse with the woman and that she did not consent. With regard to the act, the appropriate mental element in the case of attempt is obvious: it must be intention. To attempt is to try. But as to the absence of consent—what in clause 2 are called "circumstances"—the question is one of knowledge. What degree of knowledge as to the victim's lack of consent must the defendant have? The working party proposes that where the completed offence required full knowledge of a circumstance, so should the attempt; but where the completed offence could be committed by someone who was only reckless as to whether that circumstance existed, the recklessness should also suffice for the attempt.
The Law Commission rejected that distinction on grounds of complexity—a decision with which hon. Members may well sympathise—and favoured instead a requirement of knowledge in all cases. But we have come to the conclusion that as a matter of policy the working party's recommendation is to be preferred. Let me illustrate why. A man tries to have sexual intercourse with a woman not caring whether she consents. He does not know that she does not consent: he just does not care. If he succeeds in his attack he may be convicted of rape. If he fails, however, whereas the Law Commission's proposal would mean that he would not be guilty of attempted rape, under the working party's formula he would be convicted. This seems to us the right result; clause 2 puts it into effect.
The House may be relieved to know that it is unnecessary for me to discuss the remaining clauses at


similar length. Clause 3 is concerned with procedural matters. Clause 4 provides principally for the mode of trial and penalties.
Two provisions should be mentioned briefly. Subsection (2) enables a magistrates' court, contrary to usual practice, to try two informations together without the defendant's consent when those informations charge him with the full offence and an attempt to commit that offence. Subsection (3) also confirms that, while it is the function of the judge to decide whether the actions with which the defendant is charged are capable of constituting an attempt, it is the function of the judge to decide whether the defendant's actions actually constituted an attempt. Clause 5 makes similar changes in respect of conspiracies to achieve the impossible as clause 1 makes in respect of impossible attempts. Clause 6 abolishes the common law offence of attempt.
Subsection (3) also makes it clear that it is possible to charge a person with attempting to commit a summary offence. This is probably not possible under the present common law. The Law Commission considered, however, that although prosecutions would not be common there were some offences in respect of which such a charge should be available.
The final clause in part I—clause 7, makes a number of technical amendments. Part II—is concerned with the repeal of "sus". Clause 8 repeals the offence itself and clause 9 gives effect to the Government's decision, which I have already explained, to introduce a specific offence penalising interference with vehicles. Part III—clauses 10, 11 and 12—is concerned with formal and procedural matters.
The Bill deserves a warm welcome from all parts of the House. It fulfils the clear wish of the House, expressed in the Select Committee's report and reflected in the speeches by hon. Members in the debate last June, that "sus" should be repealed, But the Bill also ensures, by closing particular loopholes in the law which would otherwise result, that repeal will not deprive the public of the degree of protection which they have a right to expect. Nor will it, as I have demonstrated, leave the police without adequate powers to satisfy that expectation. The Bill also deserves a warm welcome as a further important step forward in the process of codifying and clarifying the present common law.
I believe therefore that this is a substantial and constructive piece of legislation, and I hope that the House will speed its passage.

4 pm

Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Opposition do not propose to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. I describe our attitude in that neutral, perhaps almost negative, way because of the essentially different positions that we propose to take up regarding different parts of the Bill.
Of course we accept the need to amend the law of attempt. We greatly welcome the repeal of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. But we have the strongest reservations about the Bill's proposals concerning interference with motor vehicles, which, we fear will perpetuate many of the features of the old "sus" laws—laws which we regard both as intellectually disreputable and socially disruptive.
Let me assure the Home Secretary that our objection to them and the parallel that we draw with the "sus" laws is not because we fear that that part of the Bill is a catch-all. Indeed, it is not. Our concern about that part and our criticism of it arises because it depends far too little on actions and far too much on intentions. The debate about the Bill today must concern us and the House with that precise distinction—the distinction between what a man or woman does and what a man or woman intends to do or, more properly, is suspected of intending to do.
Our attitude to the whole Bill is based on two specific principles. The first I can best describe by quoting the Law Commission, to which I pay a tribute of the sort and, I hope, of the same warmth as that paid by the Home Secretary. It said that it
is a fundamental principle of our law that it should not seek to penalise the mere intention to commit a crime.
Clearly the Opposition endorse that judgment.
The second principle on which we wish to examine the Bill must, I fear, be described in my own and, therefore, less elegant language. It seems to me that the test whether a crime has been committed should be an objecive test or, at least, as objective a test as is possible in the real world. At least it should be more than one man's judgment about what is going on in another man's mind. I therefore share and endorse the Government's view, as represented in clause 1, that the offence of attempt must involve more than a mere preparatory act. I endorse it by quoting again the Law Commission, which said that an offence must amount to
a decision to bring about insofar as it lies within his power … the offence which it is alleged the accused attempted to commit.
I share the Government's view, although in this it disagrees with the Law Commission, that the crime of attempt is possible even though the attempted crime is in some cases incapable of being carried out. Clearly a man who attempts to steal from an empty pocket—taking the example that the Home Secretary gave in his list—and manifests that attempt by some physical action is guilty of more than intention itself. He has taken positive steps to commit an offence which he believes to be possible. Clearly there must be some action against that overt physical act. In that sense the Opposition and the Government are at one in terms of the definitions of attempt and impossibility.
On the other hand—here I share the Government's view again—if the attempt, even if it had succeeded, would not have constituted a criminal offence, it seems to me obvious that that should not be prosecutable under the law. It seems to me that it is not possible to prosecute a man for attempting to buy goods which he wrongly believes to be stolen if, had he succeeded in his attempt and had it been discovered that the goods were not stolen, it would not have resulted in his prosecution. An attempt must be related to a crime which, if it had been successfully committed, would itself have constituted a prosecutable offence. Therefore, in general—although no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who hopes to serve on the Committee that examines the Bill may have detailed improvements to suggest—the Opposition do not wish to take issue with clauses 1 to 7.
On the other hand, whilst our attitude to those is the neutral one that I have tried to describe, to the proposal in clause 8—the repeal of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act


1824—we offer nothing but enthusiastic welcome. The "sus" laws have been with us for far too long. The extraordinary factor about section 4 is that it has survived for so long. Again, I join the Home Secretary in congratulating the Select Committee which brought that law to an appropriate if not speedy end.
To read section 4 of the Act is to reveal at once its inadequacy—
Every suspected person or reputed thief frequenting or loitering about … with intent to commit an arrestable offence … shall be deemed to be a rogue and a vagabond.
It is clearly not the antique language about which we mainly complain. I understand that some of the words in that sentence which have the greatest antiquity are ignored when charges are brought under the Act. It is not the language of the Act but the circularity of its logic, the subjectivity of the tests by which it is applied and the consequent selectivity of its application, about which we complain.
The arguments for the retention of "sus" are well known. They are best and most succinctly expressed in the attitude of the Metropolitan Police who, I understand, told the Select Committee:
it is essential in the public interest that police retain the power to arrest suspected persons loitering … with intent to commit crime.
In spite of the apparent strength of that argument and assertion, on the available evidence, whilst the Metropolitan Police regard it as essential for the prevention of crime in their area, it is not so regarded in Birmingham, Bristol, Coventry, Leeds, Newcastle and a whole variety of other towns, cities and police areas where this power is rarely, if ever, used.

Mr. Percy Grieve: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Birmingham there are local provisions in the byelaws under which this sort of offence is dealt with?

Mr. Hattersley: There is a whole variety of local provisions in the Metropolitan area as well. If the hon. and learned Gentleman reads the evidence which was presented to the Select Committee he will see that there was a discussion at some length about "sus" being used as an alternative to local provisions. The chief constable of the area that he and I represent talked about the impropriety of using "sus" as an alternative to more appropriate local provisions and other available means of detecting and preventing crime.
My point is valid that in other police areas the "sus" provisions have not been regarded as necessary. However, even had they been of general application throughout the United Kingdom that would not have justified their retention. To say that
it is essential in the public interest that police retain the power to arrest suspected persons loitering … with intent to commit crime.
begs the essential issue and avoids the essential point. The main issue is the one that I have already described as dominating the whole of the Bill. It is the undesirability of penalising for intent alone and the essentially related problem concerning how such intent is detected and proved.
To put it simply and crudely, how does a policeman, with the best will in the world and the most honourable intention, decide what is the intent—criminal or otherwise—of a young person who is loitering? I repeat my strongly held view that it is wholly undesirable for the

law to be dependent on one man's judgment about what is going on in another man's mind. Therefore, on the ground of penalising intent alone, the ending of the "sus" laws must be applauded.
The idea of penalising the intent to commit a crime carries with it a series of important philosophic implications about the nature of the morality. Politicians are unwise to speculate on such matters, and I have left it to the Select Committee to make a definitive statement about that essentially moral point. Indeed, many of its members were particularly well qualified to deal with such matters. It said:
Most law-abiding citizens have occasionally been tempted … but they have controlled their impulses.
It said that they would have been surprised if it had been the case
that their intentions had rendered them liable to prosecution.
The implications of that judgment are right, and the philosophic objections to "sus" led to a series of practical objections about its consequences. Too often, the burden of proof fell on the defendant. He had to demonstrate that he was innocent. Previous convictions were used to help to secure successful prosecutions. Again, I understand that those convictions were not admissible within the London magistrates' courts area. However, in other areas they were admissible.
The most telling point about "sus" was made by the chief constable of the West Midlands, Sir Philip Knights, in his evidence to the Select Committee. He said that if it was being used, as many people feared that it might have been used, as an alternative to powers to stop and search, it was an abuse to "sus" procedures. He added that it should not be used to stop people "lurking around", because lurking around was not an offence.
In London, the "sus" laws have been used too often when it has been thought desirable—for no reason that the House has endorsed—to clear the streets and to send young men packing off home. Perhaps the most obvious and strong objection to "sus" and to what it stands for was contained in the evidence given by a barrister to the Select Committee. He said that young men convicted or charged under the "sus" law invariably made the immediate response that they had not done anything.
Often such a claim is literally true. They have been prosecuted in the belief that they were about to do something. That cannot be right, because it relies on intentions rather then on attitudes, and because such a law leaves many of the young men prosecuted with a deep sense of grievance. Most of the young men so prosecuted—the statistics show that it is an almost exclusively male offence—have been suspected of contemplating one of two opportunistic street crimes, namely, pickpocketing or purse snatching, or theft of or from a parked car.
Most of the charges under "sus" have been made within the three police districts of the Metropolitan area, Greater Manchester and Merseyside. I do not wish to speculate about why those police districts employ those practices and why others do not. However, the reason is most likely to be found in tradition rather than in anything else. There is little evidence to suggest that those areas were, on any objective test, in special need of that power. The argument that such power is particularly neccessary in London bears no comparison with what happens in London. The pattern


of "sus" prosecutions in London varies from district to district and there is no discernible reason why one district should employ such a measure and another should not.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Metropolitan Police, which has an excellent law department, sent out a force order following the case of Haughton v Smith and instructed station sergeants not to prosecute in the case of the impossible offence? For the most part, that was not done in other police areas and that is one reason why the Metropolitan area used the "sus" laws when others did not.

Mr. Hattersley: I take the hon. Gentleman's word that that is the reason. However, off hand, I cannot follow the logic of why cases should be pursued in that way. Nevertheless, I stand by my initial remarks, namely, that the tradition of "sus" has dominated decisions on its use. Its tradition is a thoroughly bad reason for using it in one part of the United Kingdom or in one part of the Metropolitan area and not in another.
Although most of the country can do without such measures, in those areas in which it has been used—particulary the Metropolitan area—enormous damage has been done to community relations. Damage has been done not only to relations with young blacks in the age groups in which incidence usually arises, and to relations with those who have grown to wisdom and maturity, who spend less time on the streets, and who are therefore less vulnerable to this charge, but to relations with the entire community. The community has grown to believe that somehow the law is being used to pick on and penalise them.
There can be no doubt that the black population in general and the black population of London in particular feel that the "sus" laws bear disproportionately on them. Statistically at least, there can be no doubt that that is true to a degree. The Home Secretary said that the Select Committee had been clear in its statement that there was no intention to discriminate by the Metropolitan Police. We all believe that that is true. The Select Committee was right to say:
We do not believe that 'sus' has been used by the Metropolitan Police with a deliberate racial bias. But selective perception of potential offenders is inherent in 'sus'. The repeal of 'sus' will remove such grounds for suspicion as may exist.
It is that subjective judgment to which we object in general, and its application to the racial minorities that has caused the damage in particular.
I hope that outright repeal of the "sus" laws will help to improve relations between the police and the minority communities. The abolition of the "sus" laws is a sign of the Government's genuine wish and proper determination to remove all fears of discrimination and of harassment from the mind of the black community, irrespective of how justified and realistic those fears must be.
While I welcome the repeal of the Vagrancy Act, I must make clear that the criticisms that I am about to make of the rest of the Bill should not be used by anybody—the black community or those who seek to represent it—as an argument to diminish the importance of the repeal of the "sus" laws. The repeal of the "sus" laws is wholly good in itself, and my remarks about clause 9 do not detract from the values and virtues of that part of the Bill.
Clause 9 is the most unfortunate proposal, not only because of the "sus" implications but because of its

intellectual inconsistency with the parts of the Bill that precede it. If the House agrees—as I do—with the Select Committee that it is not in the public interest to make behaviour, interpreted as revealing criminal intent, but equally open to an innocent interpretation, subject to criminal penalties, there is very little to be said in favour of clause 9.
The proposals contained in clause 9 have been built on one of the most objectionable ingredients in any law of intent. It is concerned with the intention to gain access to a motor vehicle or trailer for a specific purpose or for specific purposes. It is very difficult to reconcile clause 9 with the general statement concerning attempt in clause 1. Clause 1 states that if an act is to constitute an offence it must be:
more than a merely preparatory act.
Something positive needs to be done.
The Home Secretary may argue—indeed, he half did argue—that the clause 9 offence requires some actual literal interference with a vehicle—for example, tampering with a door handle, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in Birmingham in the summer. The world is full of boys and young men who tamper with car door handles and interfere with vehicles without any malicious or criminal intent, who do not intend to gain access to a vehicle or anything carried in it, who do not propose to steal it or to steal from it and, indeed, who do not even propose to sleep in it.
I understand that under clause 9 if a youth were seen in New Palace Yard touching the Cadillac which is owned by an hon. Gentleman who sits on the Government Benches, a policeman who observed him touching that vehicle would have to decide whether he was touching it, manipulating its handles, running his fingers along the paintwork and looking in through its windows out of interest, reverential awe or with the intention of gaining access to it. I regard that as a wholly unreasonable obligation to place upon a prosecuting officer. The offences which might be prosecutable under clause 9 also involve actions which could have wholly innocent interpretations.
I understand that we have clause 9 because of the Home Secretary's view that something specific needs to be done about motor vehicles. In Birmingham on 11 July the right hon. Gentleman said:
there may still be some activities, in respect of which 'sus' is sometimes used now, which ought to remain within the ambit of the criminal law … There is probably a case for certain specific provisions, such as tampering with car door handles.
The difficulty about the Home Secretary's provision is that he does not want to penalise tampering with car door handles; he wants to make it an offence to tamper with car door handles for specific purposes. Therefore, mind reading is again involved. Mind reading is wholly undesirable and, in our view, wholly unnecessary in this context.
Section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, as again the Select Committee made clear, makes it an offence punishable by fine to
get on to the vehicle or tamper with the brake or other part of its mechanism".
I am advised that that Act could easily be amended and extended to cover the specific problems to which the Home Secretary referred.
If that is impossible—no doubt we shall be told later whether I am right or wrong—I can see no reason why we could not have a Bill which introduced specific offences


which do not require the degree of subjective judgment which is inherent in clause 9. I object to that because, as the Select Committee said in its fourth report
Opinions as to the extent to which an innocent interpretation can reasonably be placed on attempts to open a succession of car doors will depend on the circumstances of the case.
That is exactly the danger on clause 9—the need for interpretation of every action and the necessity to form a judgment on what a suspected person intends to do.
The only good thing to be said about clause 9 is that it applies only to motor cars, not to handbags. Thus, "sus" is genuinely and completely removed from the range of offences where it did so much harm to community relations. Our regret is that the concept of intent and the need for proximity to action has not been completely removed from the Bill.
Had clause 9 not appeared, or had it appeared in a more positive, precise and specific fashion, we would have welcomed the Bill with enthusiasm. As it is, hope that it will get a Second Reading, but it will pass without the full-hearted and formal consent of the Opposition.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I shall not take up the comments of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), save to say that I found his attack on clause 9 completely unrealistic. I shall return to that matter in a few minutes when I discuss part II of the Bill.
I have unreserved approval for part I. The Bill defines "attempt" in broad terms which closely follow those proposed by the Law Commission and which will make it easier for judges when they have to direct juries in this difficult area of the law.
The law relating to attempt has been bedevilled in the past, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated in his cogent presentation of this part of the Bill, by the law relating to impossibility, by varying judicial decisions and by the difficulty which any judge had of explaining attempt to a jury in language which it was easy for the jury to assimilate and understand in sometimes very short cases. Therefore, I commend that part of the Bill dealng with the extension of the law of attempt to an attempt to do that which is impossible—for example, attempting to pick an empty pocket, as illustrated by my right hon. Friend—and that part dealing wih conspiracy in the same regard.
I should like, in passing, to commend the work of the Law Commission in general. In recent years the Law Commission has made an important contribution to the modernisaion and rationalisation of our law, and many of its recommendations have already been passed into law by Parliament.
Part I presents no difficulty for me, and I am glad to commend it in every possible way.
I have grave reservations about part II. In view of the recommendations of the Select Committee last year and of what has been said by my right hon. Friend and by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, I recognise that I may find myself in a minority this afternoon. However, I should be failing in my duty to Parliament and to those I represent if I did not express my grave reservations about part II.
I am aware, as any lawyer and as any responsible citizen must be, of the drawbacks of the "sus" law. I have carefully followed the sustained campaign that has been maintained against it in recent years. I am acutely aware

that it is an exception to the general principles of our law that, save in exceptional circumstances, the prosecution does not adduce a man's previous convictions and that the amount of objective evidence required from the prosecutor is small in relation to the proof of intent, to which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook drew attention. It is an anomaly. But it is an anomaly that has long been justified by circumstance and is more justified by circumstance today than in the past.
The Vagrancy Act 1824 was passed because of the grave incidence of street crime in nineteenth century London. But today street crime in London and in our other cities is on a scale which could not have been imagined at that time. In 1979, there were over 11,000 cases of robbery and theft with violence on the streets of London alone. I therefore ask whether this is the time to repeal a branch of the law which is protective and preventive.
In general, our criminal law is designed to enable the police to detect crime when it has been committed and to bring the criminals to justice. This law was clearly designed to prevent the commission of crime, in the sense that suspected persons—that is, persons who were doing acts which the police found to be suspicious, who were known to be criminals, and who had criminal convictions—could be prevented from pursuing any nefarious purpose any further by being run in as rogues and vagabonds, to use the rather picturesque language of the Act.
I appreciate that here there is an anomaly in the law. I recognise the sincerity of those who believe that this has had an adverse effect upon community relations in our great cities. However, I am not sure—statistics cannot help us here—that the fact that a disproportionately large number of coloured young people have been proceeded against under section 4 of the Vagrancy Act does not proceed from the fact that one has the impression—I put it no higher, and I am using my words carefully, because I do not want to use any words which could conceivably exacerbate race relations—that a disproportionately large number of offences of violence and robbery are committed by young coloured people. That is the impression that one gains in the Crown court.
If that is so, should we not look to an educative process among those people—my words are deliberately vague—rather than remove one of the lines of protection of the innocent citizen going about his business on our streets?

Mr. Edward Lyons: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he is using his words carefully. Is he not aware that crime statistics indicate that Asian youths commit far fewer offences of violence than people with a whiter skin? Secondly, is it not right that many of these offences could still be prosecuted as attempts but that the only reason why they are prosecuted as such is that there is no trial by jury, and the matter can be disposed of quickly in the magistrates' court?

Mr. Grieve: I am happy to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's first point. Perhaps I did not use my words as carefully and with as much definition as I should. It is mostly, I fear, the West Indian youths who are responsible for the type of crime in the numbers that I have indicated. Certainly, I am happy to confirm that Asian youths are usually not involved.
On the second part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention, I shall be happy to develop my argument


further. However, I believe that even with the extended law of attempt, and even with clause 9, with the abolition of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act, the public will be denied some of the protection to which they are entitled. It is to that matter that I shall devote the rest of my remarks.
I welcome clause 9. The attack upon it by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was wholly unrealistic. The type of event envisaged in clause 9 is one with which those of us who practise in the courts are all too familiar. It is not a matter of one individual looking at one motor car; it is an individual going round many motor cars, trying the handles to see whether they have been left unlocked and, if so, helping himself to whatever portable valuables may be inside.
The right hon. Gentleman attacked the necessity, as it were, to prove intent. Of course, intent is an element in this offence as it is in almost every criminal offence, and in every case it has to be proved. Juries try the question of intent every day of the week by all the surrounding circumstances.

Mr. Hattersley: So that the rest of the debate may not continue on a false understanding of clause 9, will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that clause 9 refers to "motor vehicles", in the singular? It is not a matter of attacking, approaching, or interfering with a series of vehicles, as he says. A single vehicle will technically suffice.

Mr. Grieve: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that a matter of this kind will be tried by a justice and a finding of guilty brought in on the evidence of one vehicle alone? In my view, that is highly unlikely. There is a strong likelihood that the evidence adduced in the cases which are prosecuted will be that of interference with a series of vehicles. That is why I suggested that the right hon. Gentleman's reflections on clause 9 were completely unrealistic.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. and learned Friend has defended clause 9. I am in favour of a clause similar to clause 9. But would not he agree that the intent proscribed by the Bill is too wide in that, for example, it includes people who want to sleep in the car, or to move the car for the purpose of enlarging a parking space? Would it not be better if the clause were redrawn so as to provide that the prohibited intent should be the intent to commit an arrestable offence?

Mr. Grieve: That is a valid point which should be considered in Committee. I should like to consider the matter further at that stage.
I turn to the question of the repeal of section 4, and to the extent to which the two purposes of the Bill, or ways, as it were, of recompense or cover for what was covered in section 4 do not sufficently protect the citizen. I join issue with my right hon. Friend on the repeal of section 4.
Clearly the extension of the law of attempt will, to some extent, compensate for and enable the police to proceed in cases where they could not have proceeded before, and where they might have had to proceed under section 4. It is clear also that clause 9 will cover many cases in which previously people would have been proceeded against under section 4 of the Vagrancy Act. But there is one type

of case that deeply concerns me. Many of the robberies on the streets of London and other cities—many thefts of handbags, the knocking down of women, elderly and disabled people, and the taking from them of portable valuables—are committed by persons who, for that purpose, are prowling the streets, lurking in the shadows, and ready to pounce upon innocent citizens going about their lawful business.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, in a jocular fashion—I hope that he will forgive me if I paraphrase his words, but I think I paraphrase him accurately—"Thank heavens we have not got a clause 9 relating to handbags." It is for the woman who is out in the street carrying a handbag that I am worried. If section 4 is abolished, I do not believe that there will be sufficient protection for the ordinary citizen going about his business. Only when the police know the convictions of the person or can see from suspicious activities that he is lurking for no good purpose can he be run in under section 4.
In the future, the police will be obliged to wait until the crime has actually been committed. I do not think that that is good enough. That was the view which the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis expressed to the Select Committee. I have not the honour of serving on the Select Committee. I have the greatest respect for most of the hon. Members serving on that Committee, and a high regard—[Interruption.] I do not have it for all of them: it is no use my pretending that I have. There is one on the Opposition Benches at present for whom I have none.
I believe that in making this recommendation the Select Committee has not had regard to the reality and the necessity of protecting innocent people on the streets of our great cities. I hope very much that as this Bill proceeds in Committee it will be possible to plug this loophole by providing some further clause which will protect the innocent citizen against the night prowler.
If the Bill goes through and section 4 is repealed—I have no doubt that it will be—it will diminish the protection which the citizen is entitled to expect from the Government. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary knows, in almost everything the present Government have my full support. I regret very much that on this matter I should be at issue with my right hon. Friend, but I have to speak my mind and to say what I believe, along with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the evidence that he gave last year—that it is an error, without further provisions, to repeal section 4.
In saying that, I think that I am within the sense of the Home Office working party which was set up by Mr. Reginald Maudling in 1971 and which reported in 1974. It said:
an offence on the lines of the existing offence of being a 'suspected person' in section 4 of the 1824 act is still necessary to deal with behaviour which falls short of any other criminal offence or of an attempt to commit an offence, but which the public interest nevertheless requires to be punishable. Such an offence is likely to be necessary even if the scope of the law on attempts is widened.
With those sentiments, I am in complete agreement.
Therefore, whilst welcoming part I of the Bill, I regret very much, in its present terms, the repeal of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act in part II.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I do not share the conviction of the hon. and learned Member for Solihull


(Mr. Grieve) that this Bill diminishes the protection available to the citizen. The hon. and learned Member only had to describe the circumstances in which he would find the use of the old "sus" law desirable to reveal just how objectionable and unsatisfactory it is to conceive that someone should be arrested merely for loitering, on the basis of a supposition, which is impossible to prove, about what he might be about to do.
One of the Bill's many welcome features is that it is in part a consequence of the work of the Select Committee on Home Affairs and its recommendations to the House. It is one of the first fruits of the new Committee system of the House of Commons, and I think that it is to be welcomed particularly for that.
The complaints about the "sus" law go back very much longer than either the Home Affairs Committee or even the arguments about minority communities which have featured in the discussions in recent years. They go back at least 50 years. There have been authoritative criticisms of the "sus" law over a very long period. But in recent years it has been among young black people in about three police areas that the criticisms have focused, because that is where the use of the provisions has been.
A law whose basic fairness is widely doubted, and not merely by those against whom it is used, is really no basis for a relationship of trust between the police, who have to enforce the law, and the community. The Select Committee said:
We do not consider that the public interest is best served by an offence which leaves a significant proportion of those convicted with a sense that their conviction was unjust.
Lord Avebury put this case to the other place from the Liberal Benches in a Bill in 1978. At that time he was opposed by the then Labour Government. He was opposed from the Government Front Bench by Lord Harris of Greenwich, who adduced many objections, more far reaching than anything to which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has referred today, and saw far more gaps which needed to be filled than either the Home Secretary or the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
Since then we have had the Select Committee report and the Law Commission's report, and there is now a very wide consensus of opinion, excluding only a few hon. Members, that "sus" must go and that the repeal of these provisions is long overdue.
What will replace "sus" is a Bill which contains a codification and modification of the law of attempt, plus a new provision about tampering with motor cars. The Law Commission clearly regarded the concept of attempt as something which could be described in everyday English which people easily understand. I wish that that could be said of the Bill as a whole. I think that the Home Secretary probably echoed wider feelings in explaining his difficulties in defining and interpreting some of the Bill's features. It is quite difficult to conceive what constitutes more than a merely preparatory act. I think that the average man would have some difficulty with that. The whole area of "impossible offences" raises the same problems of knowing precisely what the Bill means.

Mr. Grieve: Is it not a very much better definition than that which is habitually used nowadays—"a proximate act"?

Mr. Beith: Yes. On the word "attempt" alone, I think that the Law Commission was right. All I am saying is that it found difficulty in extending the principle very far beyond the title of the Bill.
Interestingly, the Government have adopted the cautious view, one might even say that it is the soft view, on one of the problems to which the Law Commission addressed itself—things which do not turn out to be offences at all. The Home Secretary produced a few rather devastating examples of these. I should like to offer as another example the case of someone who attempts an offence involving drugs and it turns out that the commodity being handled is some harmless substance and not a drug at all. I agree with almost all hon. Members who have taken the view that the Government are right not to proceed in an area fraught with as many difficulties as this one is.
I should like to concentrate a few remarks on the replacement provision concerning interference with a motor vehicle, which comes in the latter part of the Bill. Is it not remarkable that the one great gap which must be filled when the "sus" law is repealed, according to the Government, is that of motor cars? The one great gap which the 1824 Act fills is the protection of the relatively recent invention of the motor car. In saying that, I do not wish to deny that there is some scope for provision to protect motor vehicles and to ensure that the kind of offence which the Home Secretary has in mind can be dealt with. I agree with him that it is clearly very much better to have a specific offence capable of objective test than any kind of intention. It is much to be preferred. He has set out to achieve such a test in the Bill. Clearly, interfering with a motor car is something which a witness can say someone did. I think that the provisions have within them the seed of something acceptable.
Clearly, however, there are many circumstances in which merely to have tried the door handle of a motor car should not put one in jeopardy of coming before the courts for a criminal offence. One or two examples have been mentioned already, but let me enlarge on the example of someone who tries the door handle of a motor car with a view to seeing whether he can identify the owner because the car is in an obstructive position, obstructing either an access or a parking place, or preventing him from moving his own car. Therefore, he sees whether the car door is locked as a means of seeing whether the owner is likely to be near at hand. Perhaps he can see on the seat of the car something from which he can identify the owner and perhaps discover whether he is in a nearby building. There is a variety of circumstances—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: There is an interesting corollary to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Clause 2(9) provides the defence that the owner consents. But if the person was opening the car door with a view to identifying the driver in order to have him prosecuted for a traffic offence, we may take it that the driver would not consent and thus an offence would be made out.

Mr. Beith: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman helpfully anticipates my argument. In my view, the defence under clause 2 is not a sufficient one. Many owners would not have consented to the car being opened at all. They would have been even less likely to consent had they thought that the person might then decide to move the car—to "bounce" it, in the phrase that is sometimes used, if the


key could not be found—or if they thought, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, that the matter might go even further and prosecution might result.
Clearly there are circumstances which need to be examined at a later stage and which take these provisions very much wider than what the Home Secretary has in mind and has sought to protect as can be seen from the wording of the Bill. My hon. Friends and I are not happy about the provisions so far. We are dealing with an offence for which the accused is liable to summary conviction. The protection of a trial by jury will not be available.
Having made those few reservations about that provision, I should point out that if the Bill goes through with all the other provisions in it the police will not only have powers to deal with attempted offences; they will also retain many existing powers to stop and search people on reasonable suspicion. We therefore certainly do not need to add to the Bill. I merely suggest that we modify it a little.
The powers that the police already have to stop and search people must be used with the greatest of care. It is sometimes forgotten that it is in the day-to-day exercise by the police of their discretion that much of the distinction between a police State and a free country consists. For those who pursue controversial constitutional cases to the limit, the distinction may repose in the written law and in the constitutional remedies available, but for most ordinary citizens in Britain the difference between our happy position as a free country and the feeling of being in a police State which exists in a number of other countries lies in the fact that most of the time the police do not go about their business by constantly stopping and searching people, or appearing to suggest that people are about to commit criminal offences. It is upon that exercise of discretion that much of the feeling and ethos of freedom in Britain depends. More important, therefore, even than the letter of the law, in this and in other matters, is the way in which the police exercise the provisions.
It is clear that at least some of the anxiety and hostility which grew out of the "sus" law must have grown out of a feeling that it was being extensively and unfairly used. Its removal will not of itself solve the community relations problems which were highlighted and to some extent exacerbated by instances of its use. Indeed, the Select Committee warned that the direct results of repeal may come as a disappointment, pointing out that repeal could do no more than create a marginally more favourable climate for improvements in the relationship between the police and the black community. Those problems, to which "sus" was merely an irritant, can only be solved by other means.
One of the most important factors in such improvements is community policing—the presence within the community of policemen who know their area and the people in it, and who are known and respected in the community. Sometimes that presence needs to be backed up by the presence of rather more uniformed police. I turn to the examples that have been quoted and to the question of what a policeman should do when he sees people who he thinks may be about to commit offences, to rob or to mug. One thing he can do is to show that he is there. In areas where there is a great deal of trouble of this kind one of the most important things that the police can do is simply to make their presence seen by

people who know that if they are spotted doing those things they will be prosecuted for an offence, and by citizens who want the assurance of knowing that the police are present with them. I therefore welcome attempts to strengthen the police force and to make larger numbers available. But we also want to see policemen present in larger numbers on the beat and in the community.
The second area in which problems will have to be solved is one with which the House will have to grapple on many other occasions in the present Session, namely, the problem of unemployment, which bears particularly heavily upon young black people. When young people are seen loitering on the streets, one reason why they are there may be that they have no jobs.
I say that as a Member from the North-East of England. Anyone going to the North-East in the 1930s, or indeed to some parts of the North-East now, would notice immediately numbers of men standing about at the street corners. If we had full employment, one might have wondered what they were doing. They are there because they have no jobs to go to. They are fed up with sitting in the house. If they are young men, they want to be out of their mothers' way. Even if they are married men, they do not want to be in the house all day. So they go to the street corners and talk with other men about their position. That happens to white British citizens in areas in which there is no great immigrant population. Much the same is true of many young black people who are to be seen on the atreets in our inner cities. A very much higher proportion of them is unemployed than is the case among the population at large. Unless we can solve the problem of unemployment, these difficulties will remain with us.
I do not believe that repeal of the "sus" law will of itself solve the problems faced by the police and the community in these respects. We must tackle those problems in other ways. But these provisions are none the less welcome.

Mr. John Wheeler: I am particularly glad to be able to speak so early in the debate, not least because, to me, as Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration of the Home Affairs Committee which was charged with the investigation of the Vagrancy Act offence, the Bill is the wholly welcome fulfilment of a Select Committee investigation. I am sure that I can say on behalf of all members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that the repeal of the "sus" offence is particularly to be welcomed, not least because of the very wide measure of agreement among those who gave evidence to the Committee on their objections to the continuance of the offence on the criminal law statutes.
First, I welcome the way in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary introduced the debate. I thank him for his sympathy and for the early review of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. It is perhaps worth reminding the House that the Select Committee began the investigation of the Vagrancy Act because of the widespread concern in the community as a whole about the character of the charge and the fact that it was seen or believed to be bearing unjustly upon the minority community in England and Wales.
I am particularly glad to associate my name with the statements made in the House today that there is no adverse reflection upon the police, and particularly the


Metropolitan Police, for the way in which they have discharged their duty. As the Select Committee said in its report:
The most powerful argument against 'sus' is that it is a fundamentally unsatisfactory offence in principle. It is not generally acceptable in English law to exact penalties for forming a criminal intention. The intending criminal has usually to carry out some act as an attempt to implement his intention.
That is the basic reason why this law is so unsatisfactory. That is why many people, including many distinguished lawyers, have for many decades opposed the continuance of this charge under the criminal law. Indeed, some of the most compelling evidence to the Select Committee was that submitted by the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association and by the lay justices of the peace—two groups of people, one of which is responsible for both prosecuting and defending, the other for judging guilt or innocence. Those two groups of witnesses were overwhelming in their opinion that section 4 of the 1824 Act should be removed from the statute book.
There will undoubtedly be a gain in the repeal of section 4 for police-community relationships. The number of charges brought under section 4 in England and Wales is fewer than 3,000, and about 50 per cent. arise in the Metropolitan Police district. A good proportion relate to white youths. However, the minority communities, particularly in London, felt that the "sus" charge was unjustly used against them. However, I, too, emphasise that the repeal of section 4 is not the whole answer. The answer rests in enhancing the contact between the police and the community, and particularly in encouraging members of ethnic minority communities to join the police service and participate in the policing of the community in which they reside. I am particularly glad to learn that the number of ethnic minority members joining the Metropolitan Police is gradually increasing, but it is still inadequate if minority communities in London are to believe by the evidence of their own eyes that the Metropolitan Police are truly representative of all the citizens of London.
The effect on crime prevention has already been referred to. The truth again is that the section 4 charge is rarely used in England and Wales. Broadly speaking, it is generally used within the Metropolitan Police area, but even there the Select Committee found that its use was often confined to a few divisions or districts. I do not believe that the public will be at greater risk as a result of its repeal.
It is of interest to examine the type of crimes that led to a charge under section 4, which broadly speaking fall into two parts—charges against youths in particular who attempt to take away a motor vehicle, and persons who attempt to steal from a handbag or purse, particularly in the high street and supermarket areas of the capital. Section 4 has rarely been used in connection with a charge of robbery or, as it is more popularly known, mugging, which is essentially a crime of stealth and occurs in a fleeting moment, when the victim and those about him in the street have their attention divertd elsewhere. It is extremely rare for section 4 to be used in connection with an attempt to commit robbery.

Mr. Grieve: Is my hon. Friend alive to the point that the use of section 4 may well operate to prevent such an offence? Obviously it would not be used after such an offence had been committed.

Mr. Wheeler: I am grateful for that intervention. However, I contend that, since the crime of robbery is essentially one of stealth, it is impracticable for any police officer to make use of section 4 as a means of preventing it. If we intend to prevent street robbery, we need uniformed police officers on duty in the parts of an urban area where the crime is prevalent. I do not accept therefore that the repeal of section 4 will in any way inhibit the ability of the police to prevent robbery or other serious crimes.
I welcome the proposals in the Bill to deal with the purse issue, which the Law Commission report has very adequately recommended. It is common sense to include that issue within the common law.
The point at which some contention arises is with clause 9 and the proposal to introduce a new criminal charge to deal with interference with motor vehicles or trailers. Generally speaking, I accept the purpose behind the clause. I do not believe for one moment that it is in any sense an attempt to reintroduce the "sus" law under another name. The differences are clear.
Under clause 9 it will be necessary for the prosecution to prove to the court that the accused person had made a distinct move towards the commission of a criminal offence. It will not rest upon the interpretation of the behaviour of the accused and what is supposedly in his mind.

Mr. George Cunningham: I believe that I heard the hon. Gentleman say that under clause 9 it would be necessary to show that the accused had made a move towards the commission of a criminal offence. If he looks at clause 9 more carefully, he will find that it is not necessary to intend to commit a criminal offence—the point already made by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). Having access or entry to a car or trying to discover whether one can get access or entry is not a criminal offence. Therefore, in this narrow but important respect, what is being done is to make certain behaviour criminal which was not criminal under "sus", a point which I hope the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Committee will regard as important.

Mr. Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was about to say that the House clearly has some concern about the interpretation of clause 9. It is clear to me that what the Home Secretary intends is that the public shall be protected and the police shall have adequate powers to deal with those cases in which a person or persons are seeking to commit what the public would regard as a criminal act by stealing from a motor vehicle or removing that motor vehicle or attempting to do so. However, there could be other interpretations arising from the way that clause 9 is presently drafted. I accept the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). He has made a point that needs to be carefully explored by the Standing Committee.
Subject to the reservation that the Committee will review clause 9 and that the offence that is subsequently recommended to this House will suffice and meet the Home Secretary's point, I concur with the Bill and give it my support. The main purpose of the Select Committee's work was to bring about the repeal of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. I therefore particularly welcome the Bill and commend it to the House for what it intends.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I, too, welcome clauses 1 to 7, but I have some questions for the Home Office. We need some clarification. I am not a lawyer. I am of that happy breed who ask questions and watch lawyers acting.
About 89 per cent. of my area consists of local authority dwellings. The police are not entitled to enter those council estates. We have had rows and arguments over that for many years. It was only in the time of Sir Robert Mark that we were able to obtain from him a tacit agreement that in certain areas—and mine was one—his police officers would show a presence on council estates now and again, provided that they were not used as council caretakers. Generally police officers are not allowed to enter the larger part of my constituency because it consists of housing estates.
We have heard clause 1 praised and we have heard the Home Secretary talking about the problems of attempt. However, if this is good for the population at large, why will it be refused to my constituents who live on council estates? Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing that clause 1 shall apply to every area of constituencies such as mine which include large council estates? That is an important question because one of the areas where I have maximum problems, certainly muggings, is council estates. The police can be called only after the commission of crimes, after my constituents have been hurt, when the police have the impossible task of trying to find the assailant. It should be made clear that the police will be able to maintain surveillance on those estates as they do in other parts of my constituency.
I have some difficulty in understanding how far the Government feel that the corrobrative evidence provisions in clause 3(2)(f) can be applied. In many circumstances there will be no evidence to corroborate the evidence of the person who saw the attempted crime. With a rigid application of subsection (2)(f) will few offenders be apprehended, not because they were not seen to have committed an offence but because there is no corroborative evidence? I presume that fingerprints and instruments used in connection with the crime or offence can be used as corroborative evidence, but many of those offences set out in clause 9 can be committed when wearing gloves and other forms of protection which would not leave corroborative evidence. Will subsection (2)(f) allow people to be apprehended, or will it be impossible, because of its requirements, to stop such acts taking place.
I turn briefly to the question of the "sus" law. Like so many other right hon. and hon. Members, I am delighted that section 4 is being abolished. But in saying "good riddance", we have a problem in London. Often there has been an outcry against the "sus" laws in London, when in reality the powers used are those contained in section 66 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839. That states that a constable may stop and detain any person in a public place whom he suspects to be in possession of stolen property or in possession of property "unlawfully obtained". The phrase "public place" is the reason why the police will not go on to the council estates. It is by that method, of the stop, search and detain law, that the Metropolitan Police operate. But the unitiated see very little difference between the operation of the stop, search and detain law under section 66 of the Metropolitan Police Act and the operation of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act.
The figure for the Metropolitan Police district of those stopped under the section 4 procedure was only 0·56 per cent., but the general feeling in London is that it was much higher. When the figure of 0·56 per cent. of all arrests is quoted, nobody believes that that number arrested under the "sus" laws is correct. The majority of the others were detained under the stop, search and detain procedure under section 66. I support the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler), who said that he thought that on enactment of the Bill there may be some disappointment among those who believe that repeal of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act will eliminate all the hassle. In fact, the use of section 66 will continue to give rise to accusations that the "sus" laws are still in operation.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The Committee made that point, but it is important to recognise that the stop and search provision is simply that, and that there is no offence unless the stop and search procedure reveals evidence of another offence. Therefore, that materially differs from section 4, under which a person may be brought before the courts and convicted on what is no more than suspicion.

Mr. Brown: That is right; I accept it. But the man who is stopped at 2 o'clock in the morning and dealt with in that way feels slightly differently. He does not see the sophistication of my hon. Friend's point. Individuals feel that the "sus" laws are being applied against them, even though, as my hon. Friend has illustrated, they are not. There is a substantial difference.
The term "loitering" is still being used under section 6 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, as well as under the Penal Servitude Act 1891. Will those sections still apply on enactment? Will people be apprehended for loitering under those Acts? If so, is the Home Secretary satisfied that the argument of the "sus" laws will not be continued in a different guise? Is he satisfied that he has taken every action he can to ensure that people understand what the new law will be?
Will the Home Secretary say why the Bill contains powers of arrest by a constable only? Under section 66 of the Vagrancy Act and under the Penal Servitude Act any person, which includes the police, has the power to arrest. If any person arrests an offender, a police officer must take him into custody or face court action. Is the Home Secretary saying that that provision is still in being? Although the Bill refers only to a constable, is the Minister implying that any person can make an arrest?
I have some doubts, like so many hon. Members, about clause 9. Tampering with motor vehicles is adequtely dealt with in section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, which clearly lays down:
If, while a motor vehicle is on a road or on a parking place provided by a local authority, a person otherwise than with lawful authority or reasonable cause gets on to the vehicle or tampers with the brake or other part of its mechanism, he shall be guilty of an offence.
The Bill changes that substantially, in that it refers only to "a public place". Why is the Home Secretary eliminating the council parking areas in my constituency? They are just as relevant as any other part. In using the words "a public place" in clause 9 the Home Secretary is eliminating the argument for section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. Why has he done that? Why has he not included the words "local authority" in exactly the same way?
I welcome the Bill generally. It is an attempt to achieve some advance, but I hope that my questions will be answered, because they are very important for my constituency.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I should like to start with some felicitations. The first goes to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on his emergence as Shadow Home Secretary. I am sorry that he is not here to hear me say this, as he is an old colleague of mine in the House. I hope that his new position will enable him to adopt a suitably Left-wing position on social issues, so that he may keep a suitably Right-wing position on economic and defence matters.
In particular, I also very much welcome the appointment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) as Minister of State, Home Office. I hope that I may be allowed to say that "Prior's loss is Whitelaw's gain." When I recall my hon. and learned Friend's admirable handling of the legislation in his previous Department, I can well understand why in his speech this afternoon my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said how grateful he was to have my hon. and learned Friend to deal with what could be a somewhat complicated Committee stage.
Thirdly, in this agreeable mood, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that he has got into the habit, as a senior Minister, of keeping his promises. He promised the West Indian community before the election that he would have a good look at "sus" with a view to seeing whether it should be removed; and he kept that promise. In the Queen's Speech and in the debate on the Select Committee report my right hon. Friend said that he had been persuaded that "sus" should go, and in the Bill, with the support of my hon. and learned Friend and of the House, he will get rid of it. I think that that is right. In addition, in response to speeches that I and others made on this matter, my right hon. Friend said that he would not remove "sus" unless he could put in its place something that was less offensive but that would be no less effective in securing the maintenance of law and order. I believe that in the Bill he has got the balance just about right.
I am bound to say—here I declare an interest—that the Police Federation would have preferred "sus" to remain. That is particularly true of the Metropolitan Police. I hope that no hon. Member will underestimate the value of the experience of the police in this matter, for they are at the sharp end and have to deal with the problem. But although I declare an interest I believe, dissenting from the view of the Metropolitan Police, that on balance it is right for Parliament to take "sus" off the statute book and to put the Bill in its place.
I should like briefly to make three points. First, the problem that we are dealing with is largely street crime. I have with me, as no doubt a number of my colleagues do, the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary and the report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Street crime is a major social offence. It deeply disturbs large numbers of elderly, lonely and handicapped people who are knocked about and who become frightened. They rightly look to the police not merely to try to bring prosecutions when the offences have been committed but, if possible, to prevent them. It is with the prevention of the large numbers of street crimes that the House should mainly be concerned today.
Secondly, whilst I think that "sus" should go, there is a problem of loitering with intent. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the spokesman for the Liberal Party, was at sea when he talked about young people loitering because they were unemployed. That is not an offence. It is a matter that we all regret. The offence is that of loitering with intent. It is precisely because intention is at issue today that the Bill is called what it is: it is a Bill to do with attempted crime.
There is nothing more frustrating for police officers or ordinary citizens than to have reason to believe that a certain person has committed a series of offences and to have evidence that suggests inferentially that that person may be guilty but to be unable to prove it to the point where they will be justified in bringing a charge. In many of the neighbourhoods of our big cities elderly people who may be a little confused will often allege that it is Mr. X who stole a handbag or broke into a car. The police are called upon to seek out Mr. X, but the evidence may be slightly uncertain. Having the practical problem of trying to identify the person referred to by the witnesses, the police will sometimes place themselves in a position from which they can observe suspects to see whether they are undertaking actions that tend to confirm the charge that other persons have made against them.
It was naive of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to suggest that the right approach of the police in such a case was boldly to step forward and show their uniform. The police are there precisely to discover whether an allegation made by a damaged or affronted person is correctly made against a specific person. They must act on suspicion and must be guided by the pattern of conduct that a person is pursuing. A man or woman of whom another person has said that he or she has been guilty of an attack or other offence may be seen by police on a Tube with his or her hand going into other people's pockets, or be seen trying a series of car doors on a dark night, or engaged in other activities where "sus" has been used. In such circumstances the police will feel the more certain that witnesses' allegations on previous matters are true and can be taken to the point of arrest and of taking the man or woman concerned before a court. Therefore, whilst I believe that "sus" should go, I also believe that it has been made to seem a much bigger monster than it ever was.
I completely understand the view of many of those in the immigrant communities, and the feelings of many young people, but on the evidence—whether it be numbers or cases—it is wholly wrong to suggest that "sus" has been a monstrous imposition, by the Metropolitan Police in particular, on racial minorities or young people. I very much welcome the fact that the Select Committee, representing all parties in the House, and my right hon. Friend in his speech today, totally rejected any suggestion that the Metropolitan Police had used "sus" in a racially discriminatory way. It is equally true that "sus" has been used on occasion to prevent crimes which would have severely damaged many ordinary citizens.
I judge the Bill very simply by the criterion of whether it fills the gap that will open up through the expungement of "sus". I believe that on the whole it does, but I have a number of questions that I hope my hon. and learned Friend will be able to deal with.
First, despite the intervention of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), it is the fact that several years ago the Metropolitan Police,


following the case of Haughton v. Smith, sent out a force order, which, as with all force orders in the Metropolitan Police, has been pretty scrupulously observed. It said that charges should not be brought if they were based on an impossible offence. A summary of Haughton v. Smith was made available. Since that time, I think it is a fact—I do not know whether it is desirable or, in every sense, a commendable fact—that in many areas of the Metropolitan Police, on the basis of Haughton v. Smith, charges of attempted theft have not been brought. Instead, in practice, rightly or wrongly, the Metropolitan Police have tended to rely on "sus". It is open to the House to criticise the Metropolitan Police on that ground. I might criticise it myself. That, however, explains more than any thing else the difference between the practice of the Metropolitan Police in using "sus" and the practice of many other metropolitan area forces in not applying "sus".

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The Metropolitan Police did not put that forward as an explanation of the discrepancy. If it was true, one would have expected to see an increase in the incidence of "sus" arrests in every division of the Metropolitan Police. In fact, one of the major factors affecting the minds of the committee was that the incidence differed largely and indiscriminately between one Metropolitan division and another. It had no relation to any observable fact such as the incidence of street crime.

Mr. Griffiths: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. I reassert that Haughton v. Smith led to a great unwillingness on the part of the Metropolitan Police to pursue cases that could be regarded as impossible crimes. Can the Minister say whether that force order is still in being and whether he has had the opportunity to discuss with the Metropolian Police the impact of Haughton v. Smith on its practice?
Clauses 1 and 2 must be taken together in the creation of this new offence. I shall not follow my right hon. Friend down the complicated labyrinths of the sexual attempts. That might be difficult. In the case, however, of the handbags, the shopping bags and pockets with nothing in them, I believe the the new charge of attempt will be satisfactory in every respect.
I should like to ask whether the Minister can bend his mind to another possibility. One of the impossible offences that continues to be committed is that where a replica firearm is produced and pointed at someone. The menace takes place, but it turns out that the firearm is a fake. All over the country, fake firearms are purchased. They are technically toys. I believe that it is an impossible offence, under firearms legislation, if the device is a toy. None the less, it would seem that the use of these replica guns is a serious matter. It should be dealt with.
The Home Secretary is aware that we have had some discussion on the matter. The Bill may not be an appropriate vehicle for dealing with it. My right hon. Friend has been good enough to say that he will look to see whether the matter can be dealt with in other ways. I have the opportunity now to ask my hon. and learned Friend whether, in his reply, he will say one word about the whole matter of an impossible offence where replica firearms are concerned.
I turn to clause 9. I listened carefully to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. I see his point.

This is a matter that may require some attention in Committee. I am attracted, at least at first sight, to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) that clause 9 would perhaps be better if it included the need for there to be intent to commit an arrestable offence. At first blush, I am attracted by that idea. I would need to take further advice before arriving at any conclusions on behalf of the police service.
The notion of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is conceivably right. A person could be trying the door of a Cadillac or a Rolls-Royce belonging to a Member of this House out of curiosity and admiration. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that any rational police officer would bring forward a charge on that sort of evidence. He would be bound to know in advance—if he did not, he would very soon learn—that no court of law in this country would, for one moment, convict in that case. We are talking as if, once a charge is brought, it is invariably found to be proved. It is not.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: It is in 97 per cent. of cases.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman says 97 per cent. I am not talking about that. I am saying that, in the case of "sus" the police, in addition to understanding the need to retain a measure of public confidence will rarely bring charges before a magistrate's court if they know perfectly well that they will be laughed out of court. A practical problem is involved. The number of auto-crimes is large. Happily, over the past year, it has gone down a little. It has nevertheless become a major problem. It is not merely a question of the theft of a vehicle. It is the opening of the vehicle—not everyone, unfortunately, locks the car door—and the stealing of the radio, the stealing, increasingly, of the tape recorder, the opening of the back door and the stealing of the spare wheel, the tyre or the tools, or, often, simply the opening of the back window and the taking of the coat, the shopping bag or some other item left there.
Auto-crime is a major problem. The police, like the public, are intensely frustrated when there is tangential evidence to suggest that a certain party has been guilty of auto-crime and the police, to use a television phrase, stake themselves out to check whether the person against whom this is alleged could be the criminal in question. They see the pattern of trying doors. It is a useful adjunct to their powers to prevent further crime.
I believe that clause 9 is essential to the Bill. It may require some amendment. I should like my hon. and learned Friend, in his reply, to deal with the possibility of extending clause 9 to include intent to commit an arrestable offence.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Like everyone else in the debate, I intend to concentrate on part II of the Bill. I hope that when the Bill goes into Committee serious attention will be given to clause 1, which is drafted in the manner recommended by the Law Commission. I took part in the seminar of the Law Commission on this subject at All Souls. I know the tortured and tortuous examination that was carried out on the business of distinguishing between a preparatory act and an attempted crime. At the moment, the test known to English law is that there should be a proximate act, the effect of which is to say to the jury


"What would have happened next if the police had not intervened?" There is, however, a real problem that arises and increases as one moves back from that test.
I find it difficult to accept the notion that one has committed an offence if one has done something that is no more than a merely preparatory act. The first adjective qualifies the second. To have a merely preparatory act suggests that one can commit an offence if one has simply committed a preparatory act. There has always been a distinction in English law between a preparatory act and a proximate act, for the simple reason that it is so difficult to evaluate what the intention is merely from a preparatory act.
If I am going to murder my wife by buying rat poison and then administering it in something that she drinks, do I commit a preparatory act when I buy the rat poison, or is it a preparatory act that constitutes an attempt? If it is merely a preparatory act, does it become more than that if I take it home? Is it more than that if I have it available when I make my wife's tea? Does it become more than that up to the point where I put it in her tea? Does it become that when I take it upstairs to my wife who is in bed, in readiness to give it to her? At what stage have I committed the attempted offence of murder? That sort of speculation can be used in all sorts of offence, and enormous difficulty will be created for juries.
In its report the Law Commission goes through the problems of alternative definitions and indicates that in other jurisdictions they have led to considerable difficulties. However, it plumps in one sentence in one paragraph for the test that is included in clause 1(1). It does not define why that is an easier test to apply for juries than any of the others that it has discounted. We shall have to have a serious discussion in Committee about what that means and how difficult it will be to apply.
I do not necessarily accept that part I is entirely devoid of controversy, but I accept what the Home Secretary said about getting rid of Haughton v Smith. I think that the House of Lords made a wrong decision, and I am glad that we are abandoning it. I agree with the Government that to have gone as far as the Law Commission did in abandoning it and saying that an offence can be committed if someone intends to commit it—that which was not an offence in English law—would have been absurd. I accept that which is done in clause 1(3). Therefore, on the whole I support part I.
I approve of clause 8, being one of those who was part of the unanimous view of the Sub-Comittee—only one person voted against it in the whole committee—that proposed the complete abolition of "sus". Therefore, I am glad to see clause 8, but I am sorry to see clause 9.
The argument for getting rid of "sus" is so strong that I am sorry that it has not persuaded the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). If he had read the report in detail he would have seen that a great deal of his anxiety is removed when the evidence is considered soberly. The remarks that he made are the sort that have been used to justify the retention of "sus", despite the criticism of many over the years. That criticism has been made by others apart from black people, and before black people came to live in Britain. For many years before black people came to live in this country there was criticism of "sus" by lawyers and judges.
The report quotes the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice in the middle 1930s about the effect of "sus". It has been a matter of concern for lawyers and civil libertarians for

a long time. The main reason for that concern is set out in paragraph 22, which has been quoted with approval by many hon. Members today. Mr right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) saw in it some moral content. I am glad to know that, as I drafted the paragraph. The fundamental difficulty about the "sus" offence is that it transgresses the prime vile of English law that a person cannot be convicted merely because he has formed a criminal intention. It is necessary to do something other than that.
The main justification for that principle is that it would lean against forming a criminal intention and subsequently removing the criminal intention by going back on it. If a person knew that when he formed a criminal intention he had committed an offence and could be convicted of it, he would be less disposed to abandon the intention and not to commit the offence. It is a sound principle, and one which I set out in paragraph 22. I recognise that the hon. and learned Member for Solihull, in disapproving of me, may not be persuaded by that argument. I ask him to read paragraph 3·27 of the Law Commission's report on attempt, which says exactly the same thing, namely, that it is wrong in principle that merely the intention to commit an offence should be a punishable offence. For that reason I and, I thought, the rest of the Sub-Committee were against putting any thing in its place.
Whatever is put in its place to fill the alleged gap is bound to have the difficulties that we have encountered with "sus". Anything that we put in its place is something less than an attempt. The Government's attempt to fill the gap by clause 9 is lamentable. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said, perfectly correctly, that clause 9 contains a totally unsatisfactory definition of an offence because a person does not have to have the intention to commit any sort of criminal offence, let alone an arrestable offence. At the very least it would be necessary to qualify it to that extent to fulfil the Home Secretary's aims. Even if it is qualified to that extent, it still remains true that a person will be convicted of forming a criminal intention and not of carrying out an overt criminal act.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he is being less than fair to clause 9? When he criticised the old "sus" law, one of his major criticisms was the absence of actus reus. As he well knows, clause 9 does have actus reus, namely, interference. That surely goes a long way to meet the criticism of the "sus" law.

Mr. Lyon: Those who tried to defend section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 before the Sub-Committee constantly said that before a person could be convicted under that section there would have to be two proven incidents that indicated the existence of the intention. Clause 9 merely says that there has to be an overt act that proves an intention. However, that is not an overt criminal act. It is an overt act intended to indicate that intention, and that overt act is as capable of an equivocal explanation as was the "sus" law.
If I go to the Cadillac that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook spoke about and take hold of the door handle and try it in order to open it, why am I doing that? Am I doing is because I want to get in to drive it away, because I want to get inside to steal something from the car, or because I so admire the car that I should like to have a look at the speedometer to see whether it is the type of car that I want to register in my book of records?


There are many innocent reasons why someone might want to touch a car. I should not be persuaded, because I have been against the proposition from the beginning. Even if I were persuaded as far as the Home Secretary is that touching car door handles is something so intrinsically regrettable that we should create a criminal offence for it, I still could not go as far as clause 9.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has read the clause. It goes far beyond what he said he wanted to do in his speech of June 1980. It goes far beyond what he has referred to today. It says, in effect, that anyone who interferes with a motor vehicle in any way will be committing an offence. That includes, for example, touching the side of the car or the aerial. It seems that that will be enough if it constitutes an intention that the magistrates accept as one of gaining entry.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: What about subsection (2)?

Mr. Lyon: That takes the matter no further. It merely means that one has to have a bona fide belief that the owner will not object. All sorts of things that one might wish to do could be objectionable to some owners but not to others. Some owners might object to someone entering the car for any reason. Others might be perfectly willing to allow someone to enter. It would be difficult for the courts to sort that out.
Clause 9 is redolent of the sorts of difficulties and objections that brought "sus" into disrepute. If it becomes law it will be used by the police in the same way as the "sus" law, and it will have the same effects. I say to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), that the sorts of "sus" offences that hit blacks were the handbag and loitering offences, while the sort of offence that hit young whites was the motor car offence. I suspect that there will be an outcry from young whites, rather than from young blacks, about this proposal. It will be as disreputable an offence as the "sus" offence ever was.

Mr. Warren Hawksley: I shall try to be brief and not detain the House for long. As a member of the police authority I have a special interest in the matter. We should give as much support as we can to the police in Britain to enforce our laws. We should not in any way weaken their position. It has been said that on occasions in Northern Ireland our soldiers have had to fight their battles almost with their hands tied behind their backs. There is a danger that we are trying to do the same to the police. It is important that we do everything that we can to give them the powers to do the job that we expect of them. Let us not forget that the police have a job not only to detect crime but to prevent it. It is important to remember that when considering section 4 of the 1824 Act. In the past that section has been used to prevent crime. It is an important part of police work, and we should give serious consideration to it.
I am concerned aboout the ablition of the "sus" laws because of the pressures exerted on them. Many hon. Members have referred to the fear about community relations. The immigrant community exerted pressure and said that it was hard done by by that piece of legislation. I am worried that when that legislation is written out of the statute book pressure will be exerted over a wider area; for example, the laws on drugs and on unlicensed drinking.

In both cases I hope that we shall receive an assurance that we shall not give in to pressures such as those exerted on the "sus" legislation.
Although I have grave reservations about the decision to abolish the "sus" laws, I support the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary promised, it gives the safeguards that are necessary to replace that law. The alternatives, especially those in clause 9, go a long way towards helping the police in relation to vehicles. However, I wish to consider another aspect. Although we may be covered for vehicles, I question whether we are completely closing the gaps that will be left by the abolition of "sus". I cite as an example the youngster waiting in a bus queue and looking at handbags. He does not get on the No. 7 bus when it arrives but disappears into a shop doorway. He reappears when the next bus queue forms. Is he covered sufficiently under the proposed legislation? I have serious doubts about that.
The Home Secretary referred to the warning that would be given simply by the sight of a policeman. The Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that if policemen were more numerous on the ground that would be a deterrent, but I doubt that. I fear that there will be many more complaints of harassment. There will be complaints that the police are not being fair because they are harassing a youngster who is receiving warnings. The number of complaints to the Complaints Board will rise steeply in areas where the "sus" laws were previously used.
I am no lawyer, but as a lay Member I have reservations about the wording of certain clauses. Clause I contains the phrase:
which goes so far towards the commission of that offence as to be more than a merely preparatory act".
I question whether we are not walking into what might be a lawyer's paradise. I hope that before the Bill becomes law we shall achieve a lawyer-proof definition of the word "attempt". I hope, too, that a better attempt will be made to deal with that aspect. The last thing that we want to do is to give the lawyers a heyday as a result of the Bill.
My final point concerns an omission from the Bill. The second report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs suggested that the police should use the powers of stop and search, and various hon. Members have raised that point today. Those powers generally come under the Metropolitan Police Acts. Authorities outside the metropolitan area are concerned that they do not have enough powers. A recent Royal Commission reported on criminal procedure and recommended that the police should be given powers to stop and search in the street. I hope that when my hon. and learned Friend replies to the debate he will give us some hope that in Committee we shall find an acceptable clause that will put into effect the suggestion of the Royal Commission. That would go a long way towards reassuring those who are fearful that by abolishing "sus" we are weakening the powers and the authority of the police.
The balance between those who break the laws and those who keep them is so fine that anything that we do to weaken that balance might be dangerous. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will give an assurance that consideration will be given to including safeguards beyond those in clause 9, which deals only with vehicles.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: In common with the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), I am not a lawyer. I shall confine my remarks to a narrow point so that as many hon. Members as possible may speak in the debate. I agree with most of what has been said by Labour Members, especially the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), who pin-pointed some especially serious London problems in relation to the Bill. I hope that they will be dealt with more fully in Committee.
If it is necessary or possible, I wish to correct an impression that is abroad outside the House and which has been repeated by almost every speaker this evening, namely, that section 4 of the 1824 Act has been repealed. If I understand the Bill correctly, only a small part of it has been repealed. Had it been repealed in full, I might be making a different sort of speech.
I wish to make a brief and urgent plea to the Home Secretary, mainly in my capacity as chairman of CHAR—the Campaign for the Homeless and the Rootless Group—which is a national campaign for single, homeless people. My colleagues on that committee, from all parts of the House, with whom I have been able to discuss the matter welcome the proposal to repeal that part of section 4 which deals with the notorious "sus" offence. However, we are gravely disappointed that the Home Secretary has failed to seize this opportunity to remove from the statute book some other unacceptable offences under section 4. Had that section been repealed, those offences would have been abolished. The section is best known because it contains the "sus" offence, which the Select Committee on Home Affairs unanimously requested should be repealed—and which of course party lines demanded should be repeale—but which also includes other offences.
It will still be a criminal offence to beg. That carries a maximum fine of £20 or one month's imprisonment for the first offence and a maximum sentence of one year for subsequent offences. It is wrong to argue that that part of the Act is being repealed.
It will still he a criminal offence for homeless people to sleep rough. That involves a maximum sentence of £100 or three months' imprisonment for the first offence and up to one year's imprisonment for subsequent offences. I do not wish to quote too many statistics. That has been avoided in this short debate. However, in 1979 167 persons were prosecuted for sleeping rough. Forty-four were given immediate prison sentences. In the same year 965 persons were prosecuted for begging, 15 were sent at once to prison and 224 were eventually sent to prison for sleeping rough and begging because they could not pay their fines. It is wrong, therefore, to say that the entire section has been repealed.
Ever since our all-party group, CHAR, was set up in 1973 it has urged successive Home Secretaries to repeal these archaic and punitive laws, especially that which relates to sleeping rough. A number of hon. Members in the Chamber are founder members of that group. We have argued, when discussing overcrowding in prisons and so on, how the situation could be eased by the repeal of such archaic laws.
On 16 December last year I wrote to the Home Secretary on behalf of the group and asked him to use this Bill to introduced these repeals. On 6 January he wrote to

me saying that he could not. My plea is that the Home Secretary should reconsider that decision and introduce the necessary amendment in Committee. I am sure that the Committee, the House and most interested people outside would support him. In his letter to me the Home Secretary said that such a change would be controversial. It is even more controversial, indeed it is a disgrace, that a civilised society should still send men and women to prison for the so-called crime of having no home or being unable to keep a home together.
Many examples have been brought to the group's attention. One was reported in the Cambridge Evening News. A 31-year-old woman was sent to prison for three months for sleeping under the canopy of a local police station. The magistrates said that they sent her to prison reluctantly because nowhere else could be found for her. The woman went to gaol. She had a long history of psychiatric care and was homeless. She should have been dealt with, not by the courts but by the local housing department under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. That is the compassionate and caring way to deal with people who sleep rough. We should not pointlessly push them through the courts and prisons at no help to them and at great cost to the criminal justice system.
That is one of the many examples of the injustices caused by that part of the legislation that remains. It is a serious omission from the Bill. I urge the Home Secretary to think again in the few weeks available before the Committee stage. I urge him to introduce an amendment to the Vagrancy Act 1824 to include those matters to which I have referred.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I hope that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) will forgive me if I do not comment on his interesting speech, because I wish to concentrate on that part of the Bill that repeals a part of section 4 or the Vagrancy Act.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the measures in the Bill. Like others who have participated in court appearances where vagrancy offences have been tried, I have always been uneasy about the operation of that statute. If I had to pinpoint the central cause of my anxiety, I would say that when one considers a section 4 offence too much depends on the evidence of one police officer, in particular, exactly what he saw, and, frequently, what the defendant said to him. I have no doubt that injustices have been done by the courts in that context. There is a widespread belief that such injustices have been done by the courts. Therefore, I welcome the repeal of that provision.
I was troubled by whether there was a need to introduce clause 9. It is a nice judgment. On balance, I believe that the Home Secretary is right to introduce a clause designed to meet such a situation, but I am anxious about the exact formulation of the clause.
I do not agree with the criticisms made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). His criticisms were twofold. First, he said that too little attention was paid to prohibited acts and, secondly, that too much attention was paid to prohibited intentions. In summary, that was his criticism. I agree with the response to him by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), that the courts are always seized of the need to determine criminal intention. In almost all


offences that is an essential element that has to be proved. This in no way departs from the standard tradition and practice of our common and statutory law.
I wish to put to the House a more important criticism of clause 9. If one looks carefully at the clause, one sees that, although it contains the prohibited intention, it carries the prohibited intention further than did the Vagrancy Act itself—the prohibited intention in gaining entry to a motor vehicle, for example, or discovering whether it is possible to gain such entry. I can imagine occasions when someone will wish to gain entry to a car for non-criminal purposes. I ventured to cite two examples in an intervention.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North will know of occasions when people want to sleep in a car because they have nowhere else to sleep. That should not be a criminal act. Another example is when there is a restricted parking space. A person who wishes to park his car may wish to move another parked car to create a larger parking space for himself. That should not be a criminal act.
I cannot see into my right hon. Friend's mind, but I fancy that he will say that he has provided a defence under clause 9(2). However, I do not believe that the defence goes wide enough. One has to contemplate whether the defence applies to the situation before the courts.
I believe that we can get round the problem by saying that the prohibited intention should be an intention to commit an arrestable offence. That is precisely the same intention as was prohibited by the Vagrancy Act. I do not believe that the criticism of the Vagrancy Act centred on the definition—if I might use the lawyers' phrase—of mens rea, or the prohibited intention. The criticism of the Vagrancy Act was based on the absence in that statute of the actus reus and, more particularly, of the difficulty in proving the commission of the offence.
So far as the prohibited intention is concerned, namely, the mens rea, I should like to build on the contents of the Vagrancy Act and argue that the act should not be a criminal offence unless it is done with the intention of committing an arrestable offence. I hope that that brief point will receive favourable consideration by the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I welcome the provision in the Bill which says that an attempt to commit the impossible in certain circumstances can be a criminal offence.
I take an obvious example. Let us suppose that a group of terrorists sought to kill someone but that another group of terrorists had already achieved the killing an hour before. If the second group of terrorists shot at a dummy in a window in the belief that it was their intended victim, there is no reason why that second group of terrorists should not be charged with attempted murder. Therefore, although it may seem odd on the face of it, the proposed correction to the existing law is a correction that is worth making.
Most of the discussion has centred upon part II of the Bill. The reason why the "sus" law is called the "sus" law is that it is unique in resting upon suspicion rather than upon anything else. It is out of context with the rest of English law, for, if a policeman sees two suspicious acts, he can proceed to lay a charge of loitering. Suspicion in other circumstances is not enough. It is not enough, in

other circumstances, simply to have two suspicious acts establishing intent when there are no other overt acts of attempt. Accordingly, the "sus" law is a bad law and should go.
The "sus" law was conveniently used for several reasons. The first was that trial was only in the magistrates' court, so that the harassed policeman did not have to attend a longer trial in the higher court and be cross-examined by counsel. It is also the fact that a higher rate of convictions is obtained in the magistrates' courts than in the Crown court. In certain parts of the country, therefore, the pattern grew up of charging "sus", while in other parts of the country, such as West Yorkshire, the offence of "sus" was seldom charged. In a year in West Yorkshire there are about 80 charges of "sus", but in London in a year there are well over 2,000 such charges. In some parts of the country the "sus" charge is virtually unknown.
Another problem with "sus" relates to motor car offences. In the old days, the problem about charging attempt in relation to taking a motor car without the owner's consent, or stealing the car or its contents, was that when someone was arrested for having been seen to have been operating on the handle of a motor car, if he were charged with attempting to steal the car, the jury might take the view that he was going for the contents, whereas, if he were charged with stealing the contents, the jury might take the view that he was intending to take the vehicle. As a result, it became a common practice to charge the "sus" offence, because it got round the difficulty of charging attempt in circumstances in which one could not prove which of the two offences the person concerned had been seeking to commit. It was, not that there was no evidence of attempt, but that one did not know which offence was to be attempted. Therefore "sus" was used. One can, therefore, see the temptation to put into the Bill a clause which gets round the difficulty concerning attempt. The difficulty, as I have indicated, was in deciding whether the car was to be taken away or whether the contents of it were to be stolen.
Clause 9 goes far beyond that. It would have more respectability if it dealt with the alternatives to which I have referred—taking something from the interior of the car or taking the car. Suppose that a man, in wanting to move his car, found that another car was, in his view, in the way. He might be tempted to move the other car a yard or two in such circumstances. Alternatively, he might want to park his car in a gap which could be made sufficiently wide if he were to move the other fellow's car a yard or two down the road. To do that is to take something of a liberty but, none the less, it should not be a criminal offence. Certainly it was not contemplated under the original law of attempt, because there is in Britain no offence relating to moving a car a yard down the road in order to create extra space.
In my view, therefore, there is here an enlargement of the criminal law which does not even relate to dishonesty, because clause 9 has nothing in common with an offence of dishonesty. There can be dishonesty contemplated, but it need not be contemplated. It is clear from the last part of subsection (1) that it is sufficient to be interfering with a vehicle. The word "interfering" is not defined. The words in the subsection are
discovering whether it is possible to gain such entry or access.
If my car breaks down, on seeing a car nearby I may wonder whether I can get a torch out of that car—so that


I can see what I am doing when I try to repair my car—or I may wonder whether I can borrow a jack from that car. A magistrate—because there seems to be no entitlement to go to a jury in such cases—would need to say "You interfered with that vehicle in order to gain entry to it to borrow a jack" and that would be sufficient for me to be found guilty. Surely it is not the intention of the Home Secretary that people should be placed in jeopardy for that sort of reason.
I know that clause 9(2) is a saving subsection, in that if a person has a belief that he has lawful authority to do what he is doing—or that he would have the owner's consent—that prevents the matter from becoming an offence. But there are circumstances which would not be covered by either of the two matters mentioned in subsection (2).
Why cannot clause 9 expressly indicate a dishonest intention? It is left to inference. As it stands, the clause is highly unsatisfactory and will have to be looked at again. None the less, the abolition of the "sus" offence in general is welcome.
It has been said today—as it always is—that somehow "sus" has been used in order to prevent crimes of violence. That is nonsense. There is no evidence that "sus" has been used to stop people who were about to commit crimes of violence. It has been used almost exclusively in order to prevent the theft of property. That is why the examples that are always given are in relation to cars and in relation to pickpocketing. It is not generally used in order to prevent old ladies from being mugged. It is not used in relation to violence; it is not seen to be used in relaton to violence. Those who seek to use that argument are doing a disservice to the case for the abolition of "sus".
I congratulate the Home Secretary on going as far as he has done, but I hope that he will go a little further in relation to clause 9.

Mr. George Cunningham: Although the new Minister of State, Home Office comes not at all fresh to this subject matter—far less fresh than I do—he comes fresh to this team, and therefore I should like to take the opportunity to welcome him, as my opposite number, to his new position and hope that we shall have productive dealings.
The Bill before us, as has been said, is divided into two parts, and, like others, I want to concentrate on the second part, despite the fact that the first part, codifying the law of attempt, is extremely important in its own right. But the two parts are not separate, and the principles which the Law Commission set out in its report—the Law Commission is to be congratulated on making the task of the House much easier, in the light of that report—are principles that ought to be firmly borne in mind when we come to consider clause 9.
The House ought to appreciate—I am sure that people do—that while the first part of the Bill comes to us with the imprimatur of the Law Commission, subject to a few amendments, clause 9 most certainly does not. Clause 9 comes to us with the imprimatur of the Home Office, which, with great respect to Ministers, is a much less respectable one in the eyes of many of us, and one that we would less automatically follow than we would the advice, perhaps, of the Law Commission, at least on this subject.
The changes that the Home Office is recommending us to make in the draft of part I in the report of the Law

Commission will no doubt be gone into carefully in Committee, which will be all the more thorough for being under the new and experimental Special Standing Committee procedure. All that I should like to say at this stage is that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, we agree that the departure from the Law Commission's proposal with regard to impossibility is to be commended. The addition of recklessness in motive in clause 2(3) will have to be looked at extremely carefully in Committee.
The other changes are of language and no doubt are to be attributed to the feeling on the part of every parliamentary draftsman that he knows better how to draft Acts of Parliament than do hon. Members who interpret them. Whether that is so is extremely questionable.
There have been references to the various fascinating examples of impossibility. It might be thought, or hoped, that the discussion of English law should lose the interest of considering such questions as whether it should be an offence to go up to a victim who one thinks is sleeping and stab him in the back, when in fact he died five minutes before of a heart attack, or whether it should be an offence to do all that is necessary to commit an illegal abortion, only to discover afterwards that the woman was not pregnant.
I should miss, and everyone would, the fascination of discussing those issues. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook suggested, the words
even though facts exist which render the commission of that offence impossible
leave great scope for the re-emergence of those old issues that have given so much pleasure to so many people in the past. I think that we shall see as much of them in the future as we did in the past.
I turn now to the second part of the report. I shall not dwell long on the virtues of repealing parts of section 4 of the 1824 Act. We had a full debate on that last June. No tears should be shed over the loss of those provisions. If there is any lesson to be hammered home now, it is that Parliament should be extremely careful about putting woolly language like that in the 1824 provision on the statute book. When Parliament finds that it is on the statute book, it should not be so conservative in deciding that because it is there, it ought to stay there. If we take that approach, the statute book will continue to be cluttered up with things that should not be there, which are offensive to the proper principles of English law, and which were just as offensive to those principles when they were put on the statute book in 1824 as they are today.
One has to be extremely careful in considering clause 9. It creates a new offence. The first question that we have to ask is the one posed by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), namely whether there is any need to put anything in the place of "sus". Eminent judicial authorities were quoted in the debate last June as being in favour of the view that there is no need to put anything in the place of "sus". It was the view of the Select Committee that there was no need to put anything in the place of "sus". It is the view of many people that we should use the general law of attempt and that that should be sufficient.
When the Home Secretary introduced the debate, I thought that some of the words that he used were significant. He talked of "gaps left by repeal". He talked of "actions sufficiently close to the full offence", and of


"closing particular loopholes in the law which would otherwise result". He meant that which would otherwise result from the repeal of "sus".
The right hon. Gentleman's remarks during the debate last June were of the same nature, and the remarks made by the then Minister of State, Home Office were similar. The Minister of State said:
there is some ground which 'sus' covers which ought to be covered by the criminal law in a form which is more modern and does not have the objectionable features that the present 'sus' law has."—[Official Report, 5 June 1980; Vol. 985, c. 1815.]
I draw the conclusion from that quotation that it was the view of Ministers—I think that it still is the view of the Home Secretary, despite the drafting of the Bill—that if something is needed in place of "sus", it is something that covers behaviour that was previously covered by "sus". I suspect that the Home Secretary still thinks that what he is doing in clause 9 is to cover some, but not all, of the behaviour previously criminal under "sus". I hope that in the next few minutes I can persuade him, as others have sought to do, that he is not doing that.
The right hon. Gentleman is doing something additional to what he contemplated last June, what he contemplated in his speech today, and what I think he is still contemplating. In rough terms—I should prefer not to use these words—we are preserving a sort of "sus" in relation to vehicles, and we are making it worse. As I have said, it is important that we should consider clause 9 against the background of the principles on preparatory actions leading up to an offence. I say "preparatory actions" rather than "attempt" in order to deal with those actions that are thought to be preparatory to an offence, but which are too distant from the offence to be called an attempt.
There are many references to this matter in the Law Commission's report. I pick only one from paragraph 2.23:
For reasons we have given above, we have as a matter of policy decided against the possibility of penalising criminal intent accompanied by merely preparatory acts
The whole report is littered with references of that nature. It insists time and time again that actions that should be criminal at least under the general law of attempt are actions that go close to the completed offence.
I accept right away that, at the same time as saying that, the Law Commission acknowledges and commends the use of specific offences for certain preparatory actions, where that is thought to be in the public interest. An example is going equipped to steal, which is a preparatory offence, one could say, but is a specific offence and does not have to be dealt with under the general law of attempt. Other examples are carrying a firearm, or doing certain things in relation to the forgery legislation.
The Law Commission implies—and we ought to be sure from our knowledge—that where it is proposed that preparatory behaviour should constitute a specific offence on its own, as is proposed in clause 9, we should be extremely reluctant to do it in the first place. The burden of proof lies with Ministers who propose it—otherwise we should rely on the general law of attempt. So it is on that doubting, suspicious and reluctant basis that we ought to approach clause 9.
Clause 9 provides that if one does certain preparatory things with a view to gaining entry to a vehicle, gaining access to a vehicle or discovering whether one can gain

entry or access to a vehicle one has committed a criminal offence. That was not an offence under "sus". I hope that the Home Secretary realises that. Under "sus", bad as it was, one had to have an intention not only to commit an offence, but to commit an arrestable, that is, a relatively serious, offence. And the intent is not just to gain entry or access, but to discover whether entry or access can be gained.
I find it incredible that the Home Secretary should be proposing that the burden with regard to intent should be weakened in this provision as compared with "sus". The effect of it is that certain behaviour, which at the moment is not criminal even under "sus", will be criminal if the Home Office gets its way and puts this provision on to the statute book.—[Interruption.] If the Home Secretary is asking the Minister of State whether that is right, the answer is "Yes".
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that conspiracy, which was re-formed a little while ago, now applies only to conspiracy to do a criminal offence? I am sure that the Law Commission, had it had an opportunity to consider clause 9 as it stands, would have come to the conclusion that it is contrary to the principles that should govern the passing of legislation. Because of the way in which we shall have a Standing Committee on the Bill, I hope that we shall have an opportunity of discovering an answer to that, and not have to speculate on what the Law Commission would have said had it known in advance.
There is also something of a conflict of principles, surely, between clause 9 as it stands and clause 1(3), which has the effect of saying that a person cannot be guilty of attempting to commit an offence if no offence would have been committed had he completed the actions. All right, that is dealing with the law of attempt, whereas clause 9 is making a specific offence. But there is something curious in saying that one cannot be guilty of an attempt to commit an offence if what one is trying to do is not an offence, and, under the later provisions of the Bill, saying that one can be guilty of an offence for interfering with a car when, had one done all that one intended to do, it would not have been an offence. There is an unacceptable oddity there.
There is another respect in which the clause is making criminal behaviour that is not criminal at the moment, even under "sus." With all its faults, "sus" requires that two overt acts should be committed, one to become a suspicious person and the other to trigger off the next stage of the process. Clause 9 does not require two actions. Only one would be sufficient so long as the court held that that action was interfering with a car and was sufficient to show the intent set down there.
The Home Office seems to have changed its mind. The Home Office working party of 1974—not one of the most progressive bodies in the world on this subject—at page 62, paragraph 203, when recommending that "sus" should be replaced by something, said:
The offence should in our view be limited to the case of a person whose antecedent conduct in a public place reveals his intent to commit an arrestable offence. 'Antecedent conduct' should, as under existing law, include at least one suspicious act before and distinct from the act which caused him to be charged with the offence.
To put it crudely, that working party was made up of Home Office officials and police, and it took a certain view of the whole subject matter as a result. But even it did not suggest that we should get away from intent to do a non-crime and from two specific actions.
There is then the question of what interpretation will be put upon the word "interference". First, why have Ministers introduced the word "interference"? If there is already on the statute book a word that is used in this context and another word is used, the courts are bound to presume that something different is meant. There is a word already on the statute book. It is in section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, and the word is "tampering". Since Ministers are proposing that we should not use "tampering", the courts will presumably hold that "interference" means something different from "tampering", although I should have thought they were very similar.
Why did Ministers use a different word? Would it be necessary to touch the vehicle in order to interfere with it? Would trying one door handle constitute interfering with a motor vehicle? Would standing outside and not touching the vehicle but having a stick with a piece of string on it in one's hand with a view to holding it inside the vehicle and undoing the handle constitute interference?
In this case the actus is too vague, and we shall not know what it means until five or 10 years of court cases have clarified the matter for us. That is what we are trying to get away from. Add to the vagueness about the actus reus the vagueness about the low level of the burden of proof with regard to intent, and we have a recipe for all the complaints about this offence in its limited sphere of action that applied to "sus" in its wider sphere of action.
I hope that when the Minister of State replies to the debate he will confirm as a matter of fact that it is true that certain behaviour that is not at the moment criminal under "sus" will become criminal under this provision. He has already nodded his head. I still find it incredible that when we have gone through the whole argument about whether it is necessary to replace "sus" with anything, Ministers should come to us with a recommendation that we should intensify criminality of behaviour, although on a much narrower front.
My personal view is that there is no need for clause 9. If, however, we are to put on to the statute book something of this nature, it needs to be changed, as the hon. Member for Grantham said, in order to make the intent at least an intent to commit an offence, preferably an intent to commit an arrestable offence.
There is another way of dealing with it, for which there is a perfect precedent. In past remarks on this subject the former Minister of State and some speakers in the debate today have said that the problem is that one does not know which offence a person is trying to commit if he is trying to get into a car. He might be trying to steal the car, he might be trying to take and drive away the car, he might be trying to steal from the car, or do malicious damage to the car, and so on.
We have a precedent for making behaviour criminal where we have one of a number of intents in mind. It is in the definition of burglary in the Theft Act, where it is an offence of burglary if a person enters a place as a trespasser with intent to commit any offence mentioned in the Bill. There then follow a number of offences, including stealing. If we wanted to, we could base ourselves upon that precedent and say that it is an offence to do a thing with the intention of stealing a car, taking it away, stealing from it and so on. That would be more specific, the burden would be more proper and the language would be a great deal clearer.
The provision as it stands is unsafe. We would continue to rely upon what a policeman said he saw when the actions he saw were susceptible of an innocent interpretation as well as a guilty one. That is exactly the situation from which we are trying to escape. I hope that after rigorous examination of clause 9 in Committee, it will be decided either to excise it from the Bill or to subject it to the qualifications that I and many other hon. Members have raised in this debate.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): A wide area of common ground underlies the debate. There has been wide agreement that the "sus" law should go. Nevertheless, I well understand the reservations expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). In addition, there has been wide agreement that the law of attempt should at least be clarified.
For a long time there has been great pressure to repeal the law of "sus"; and that pressure has come from a great many quarters. Some people have stressed an objection to "sus" based on one ground and others have stressed objections based on different grounds. While I accept that entirely legitimate objections and reservations have been expressed—notably in our most recent deliberations by the Metropolitan Police—there is a general belief that this offence should go. Indeed that belief has been held for quite a long time.
Common ground may have been obscured during the debate, but it is a matter for satisfaction, at least for Conservative Members, that the Conservative Party committed itself in its manifesto to the repeal on the law of "sus". I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for the welcome and the congratulations that have been expressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on having taken this step.
It has always been clear that the law of "sus" has close links with the territory covered by the law of criminal attempt. I am glad to endorse warmly the compliments that have been paid to the Law Commission for the very diligent and, as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said, at times tortured care that it has devoted to its deliberations on how to clarify the law of attempt. Its work has been of the greatest value to us.
Several hon. Members pointed out that the Bill departs from the Law Commission's recommendation that it should never be a defence to a charge of attempt that the commission of the full offence would have proved impossible for some circumstantial reason. The course that my right hon. Friend has taken in forming the Bill in this way has met, I think, with universal approval from those who have spoken on this subject today.
It is only courteous to the Law Commission to say a word or two about why we have adopted this course, although it has not featured prominently in today's debate. We have taken a partially different view from that of the Law Commission, but we acknowledge that persuasive arguments can be male on both sides. The broad question is whether impossibility should be a defence to a charge of attempting to commit an offence and, if so, to what extent. We agree that if the impossibility lies only in the fact that inadequate means are used—for example, if too weak a poison is used—that is no defence. Indeed, that was still the law after the case of Haughton v Smith.
We also agree that where the impossibility lies in some matter of fact—for example, the pocket did not contain a wallet or the wallet contained nothing of value—it should not serve as a defence. On that point, we are on common ground with the Law commission. We also agree that there should be no guilt where the only culpability lies in the accused trying to do something that he wrongly thinks is unlawful. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State used the illustration of a girl who is older than the man supposes her to be. He supposes her to be under the age of consent and intends to have intercourse with her, but in fact she is 17.
If the behaviour, when carried through to completion, would still not have amounted in law to an offence due to the existence of some circumstance which the accused was ignorant of it is not right to call that an attempt to commit an offence. It may be thought that such matters should be punishable, but I do not agree. However, if it is thought that that should be punishable, that end should be achieved not by amending the law of criminal attempt, but, as my right hon. Friend suggested, by making it a substantive element of the Offences Against The Person Act, or whatever the relevant statute might be.
It would be a distortion of the concept of attempt to extend it to cases in which someone not merely tries but succeeds in doing what he had intended to do. The division of opinion lies between those, such as the Law Commission, who take the "subjective" view, who focus on the person's intent and pay less regard to the circumstances that make the commission of the full offence impossible, and those who pay primary regard to the degree of danger to the public that that conduct presents. It is an interesting and highly debatable subject. I am glad that the Government's proposals have met with the approval of the House.
Whichever course we had chosen to follow in the reformulation of the law of attempt, the necessity for which arose as a result of a decision in the other place in the case of Haughton v Smith, and even if we had followed the Law Commission's recommendation, there would have been a dangerous gap in our defences against dishonesty if we had not legislated specifically for dishonest interference with motor vehicles.
How is such legislation to be achieved? I accept the point made by several right hon. and hon. Members to the effect that clause 9 makes it an offence—subject to the defence set out in clause 9(2)—to seek to enter a motor car for the purpose of going to sleep. However, if the acceptability of the Government's approach is to be tested, we must ask ourselves whether it has been established that the public need to be protected from street crime connected with parked motor vehicles. No one has seriously contested the fact that a problem exists. Indeed, the Select Committee acknowledged that a considerable volume of dishonest and criminal activity was connected with parked cars.
That must be the starting point. Therefore, the Government have demonstrated that that first condition for legislation has been established. There is a need to protect the public. One must then ask whether the proposal is something that society can reasonably take to itself by way of protection or whether it is unreasonable, as virtually all hon. Members agree is the case as regards section 4 of the Vagrancy Act. It it is unreasonable, in the sense that it is

likely to cause unacceptable criminality, we should not proceed. The Government would not wish to proceed if they felt that that was the case. However, we do not believe that that is so. To use the language of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), to say that the Bill will intensify criminal behaviour does not dispose of the issue; it is making something criminal which the Vagrancy Act does not make criminal. That is not the point. I acknowledge that in the instance that I have given the Bill does that. But if it permits dishonest behaviour which is perpetrated to a cerain extent to be more readily stopped, I believe that we are following a legitimate procedure.

Mr. George Cunningham: If someone goes to a car and the door happens to be open and he goes in and sleeps in it and he does not commit an offence, why should it be an offence if the door happens to be closed to interfere with it for the same purpose?

Mr. Mayhew: If it be necessary to provide the police with an effective weapon to curb this criminal behaviour, to catch that activity, I believe it to be legitimate. Although it is not an offence now to enter a car to sleep, if the clause becomes law, it will be known that if a person interferes with a car with the intention of gaining entry to it for any purpose, he commits an offence.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose—

Mr. Mayhew: Time is getting on. I wish to deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). It is possible to say that we will limit this to an arrestable offence. We shall consider the point. But if the law were not changed, that would have the effect of enabling trial by jury to be opted for, and that is cumbersome.

Mr. George Cunningham: Why?

Mr. Mayhew: Because arrestable offences are nearly always triable by jury. That is an objection, but we shall consider the point.
The fundamental objection to clause 9 is that it enables someone to arrest a person on the ground that he has a certain intent. That point was made the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) as being a fundamental objection. I believe it to be a misconceived objection. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham said, time and again every day the courts are concerned with construing and determining a person's intention from the circumstances of the case.
For example, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury mentioned burglary. One type of burglary is defined as entry as a trespasser with intent to commit theft, rape, criminal damage or grievous bodily harm. That is on all fours with somebody attempting to enter a motor car with no ostensible title to do so. That has not caused any difficulty to the courts in determining whether in a burglary case somebody entering as a trespasser had or had not the intent. One looks at the circumstances. Similarly one looks at the circumstances in which somebody is charged with interfering with a motor car. The point is that one looks at the circumstances in every case.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman, to whom I add my welcome, clarify one point? The offence that he is comparing with clause 9 is entering a building for the purpose that he described. I understand that the clause concerns "interfering with" or what the


Secretary of State described as "tampering with". There seems to me to be a substantial difference between the two, not least because the hon. and learned Gentleman cunningly—I mean that as a compliment—changed the two verbs between two sentences.

Mr. Mayhew: There is no problem on this aspect. The point made by the right hon. Gentleman was that one could not safely deduce somebody's intent from his observed actions and that it was wrong that somebody should be allowed in evidence to say "I saw this man doing something and from that I deduced that his intention was X or Y." If that were an objection, it would be an objection to a very large corpus of the criminal law of England and Wales. Burglary, handling stolen goods and uttering forgeries are examples. For example, to utter a forged £1 note is an offence only when the person concerned knows it to be a forgery and intends to defraud. Therefore, we must look carefully at the position.
I believe that "interfering" as a word will not cause the slightest difficulty to the courts. If somebody holds a stick through the open window of a car, that is plainly interfering. If somebody handles a car door handle, that is interfering. The question is the intent with which it is done. Is it for the purpose of gaining entry? One does not gain entry to a car by touching the aerial. But if a person is fishing around inside, in all probability—the burden of proof will be on the prosecution—he is attempting to gain entry or access to something in the car.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked whether it would be an offence if somebody opened a car door to see whether he could identify the owner in order to get him to move his car. I draw attention to clause 9(2), the special defence. We shall consider whether a "without reasonable excuse" defence might be incorporated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham suggested that the person concerned would not consent if the intention was to identify the driver for the purpose of a prosecution. That is ingenious, like most of my hon. Friend's interventions. But one does not need to open a car door to discover who the driver is. That can be done these days by looking at the number plate.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler), as Chairman of the Home Affairs Sub-Committee, for his welcome to the Bill. I am glad that he, with his experience, regards it as a satisfactory measure. He said that the public would not be at greater risk by reason of the repeal of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. He also said that he did not accept that the police would be inhibited in dealing with mugging.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) asked some questions on which I had better write to him because they relate specifically to London. Broadly, clause 1 applies to everywhere in England and Wales. Clause 9, dealing with public places, will apply to council estates where the public generally are admitted, but there are areas of council estates which are private and which by definition are not public places.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) for his compliments both to my right hon. Friend and to me.
I have already dealt with the question of entering a vehicle to sleep. On the question of an arrestable offence in connection with sleep, I can see the attraction of making it a necessary condition of guilt that there should be an

intent to commit an arrestable offence, but, as a matter of practicality, there will be a big temptation on the part of anyone who is caught dishonestly fiddling or interfering with a motor car to say "I was intending only to sleep in the car." That is one of the practical considerations that have to be taken into account.
I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) about firearms. He has already had a letter from my right hon. Friend and he knows that to use a firearm, whether a toy or not, for the purpose of demanding with menaces is an offence.
I should have liked to be able to deal with many of the further questions that have been posed, but time does not permit.
It is common ground that the public must be protected from motor crime, particularly crime relating to parked vehicles. It is a serious problem. On the other hand, we must ensure that we do not give the law-enforcing authorities weapons which are incompatible with the liberty of the subject. We believe that we have got the balance about right in the Bill. However, we are not so dogmatic as to believe that our formulation is the only one that can achieve a proper balance.
We are grateful to those hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. We shall listen carefully to what they say in Committee. We have profited from what has been said today, and I am grateful for the broad welcome which the House has given the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Special Standing Committee—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

Orders of the Day — Greater Manchester Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Mr. Speaker has selected the motion for an instruction.

Mr. Fred Silvester: I start by apologising to the House for my voice. I hope that it will stay nasal and not disappear during the course of the evening.
I shall set out as carefully as I can the provisions of the Bill and say something about its key provisions and why they are necessary. The Bill arises from the Local Government Act 1972, under which all the local Acts in the Greater Manchester area were due to expire at the end of 1979. As a result, the Greater Manchester council and nine of the 10 district councils have jointly promoted this Bill.
The position of Tameside is peculiar in that it failed to pass the necessary resolution to be a joint promoter. It is therefore free to petition against clause 58, whereas the other districts are not free so to do. However, the Bill will apply to the Tameside area as well.
The Bill is based on extensive discussions that were held within the Greater Manchester Association of Metropolitan Authorities. It has been discussed on many occasions. It was deposited in Parliament in November 1978. It has taken a long time to reach the House, partly because of the general election which took place in the


interval and, more particularly, because of the need to ensure that the Bills promoted by various different local authorities produce legislation without unnecessary local differences. As a result, the promoters held back so that they might see how similar provisions were treated in the Cheshire and Merseyside and other Bills.
Those decisions were made in February and March of last year. They enabled the promoters to withdraw some clauses and to save a contest with counsel on five other petitions. I am sure that the ratepayers will regard this as an act of prudence, because the Bill has already incurred costs in excess of £150,000. Nevertheless, the Bill has been before Parliament for more than two years, and has had three carry-over motions. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for laying an order to delay the automatic lapsing of the local Acts beyond the revised date of the end of 1980, allowing the council a further six months for the passage of the Bill. I am sure that the House will agree that the time has come to bring these matters to a conclusion.
The Bill in its present form consists of 180 clauses and six schedules. That sounds a lot, but it should be remembered that some 260 local Acts were in force at the time of reorganisation. It is also smaller than the original Bill. Sixteen clauses were deleted by Committees in another place, and 17 clauses have been withdrawn by the promoters.
I shall outline some of the Bill's provisions. I do so because undoubtedly there will be some hurly-burly in respect of specific clauses. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the Bill contains other valuable items about which the House should know.
I should add that petitions have been lodged against seven clauses. I shall deal with them as I proceed, because I know that the House will be particularly interested in the clauses to which objection has been made. I shall deal with them as I go through the Bill, with the exception of clause 58 on street processions. I imagine that that subject will take up most of the available time, and I shall deal with it at the end of my remarks.
I shall not discuss part I and the final provisions of the Bill, which are interpretation clauses and technical matters relating to implementation.
I shall deal, first, with part II. It provides for the continuance until the end of 1984 of certain existing powers to aid industry. These provisions are fewer than were originally planned, either because it was felt that the proposals were covered by existing law or because the Government opposed any new industry powers to be set up in local legislation.
The Bill provides for local authorities to lend up to 90 per cent. of the security for the purchase or lease of land, and for the erection of any building whether within their boundaries or not. The Greater Manchester council and the city of Manchester, but no other district, may also make loans for the management of a building. Those of us who are concerned about the better industrial development of the area, an area which has suffered considerably from changes in the forms of industry, will welcome these clauses. The clauses will apply to both manufacturing and service industries.
However, clauses 6, 7 and 8 concern manufacturing industry and enable grants to be given to small firms—in other words, firms with fewer than 100 employees—and

local authorities may prepare and improve industrial sites for use by companies. Local authorities may also guarantee the payment of rent on industrial buildings.
These powers are not new. However, they are extended geographically, and apply to some parts of the area not previously affected. They all cover manufacturing, scientific and research companies, but, as I said, only a limited number cover service industries. The powers are the same as in Acts relatiing to other counties. The powers will expire in 1984—a fact which, again, is common to the other Acts. That limitation was imposed by both the previous and the present Governments in discussions with the Greater Manchester council, and it is related, I am told, to the fact that there is a continuing review of the whole subject of Government aid, which it is hoped will be concluded by 1984, although it will be realised that a review has been conducted in recent times.
I come to part III, dealing with
Lands, Open Spaces and Municipal Property".
I shall not go into the matter in great detail. In the main, it relates to updating powers. Let me give an example. The councils already have power to make byelaws for items such as swimming pools. But, of course, there has been a growth of leisure centres, which have a wider application. Clause 11 will give local authorities power to extend byelaws to leisure centres.
There is a clause which is of particular interest to me, because it affects Platt Fields Park in Manchester. But clause 12 changes the rules relating to the closing of parks. Under the present law, it is not possible, basically to shut parks on a Sunday. Some may feel that that is quite right. But it makes life difficult when people are trying to arrange a large show. So changes in the law will make it more possible for such matters to be dealt with.
There is one other matter which will probably interest people in the locality. There are some parks in Greater Manchester where transport is run. In Lyme Park there is a thing called a land train, and in Heaton Park I think there is a tram. There is some doubt as to whether those are legal, so clause 14 ensures that, if they are not legal already, they become legal.
There is only one other clause in this part to which I draw attention—unless any hon. Member wishes to raise other matters. Clause 15 is quite interesting because it gives the local authority power to make an arrangement with a profit-making organisation in the running of leisure activities. For example, at present the local authority can deal with a charity or with a museum or art gallery run on a non-profit making basis, but if Manchester City, for example, had wished to continue with the ice rink and had wished to deal with a commercial undertaking, it would not have had the power to do so. This clause will give it such powers.
In the main, the rest of this part is a tidying up operation.
Part IV deals with highways. Very extensively, highways relate to the Greater Manchester council rather than the individual districts. There are a large number of clauses in this part. In order to guide hon. Members through them, I have taken the liberty of grouping some together. In clauses 17, 18, 19, and 24 we are concerned with obstructions to footpaths. This will make quite a difference to cities. It is concerned with the fact that, if one wants to put a kiosk or one of those rather interesting advertisement pillars in a pedestrianised area, one is liable to run foul of the law. Therefore, the clauses provide an


opportunity, particularly in pedestrianised areas but not only there, for kiosks for selling refreshments, for advertisement display, and even for trees in tubs. One hopes that that will have the effect of making life more pleasant.
Incidentally, at the end of the Bill there is another clause which will help pedestrians. It strengthens the powers to stop people from cycling in areas which have been set aside for pedestrians. This is a cause of some anxiety on the part of old people in my constituency who are fearful of getting knocked down.
A new offence is created by clause 23, which makes it an offence to interfere with local government property. Of course one cannot go around maliciously damaging that now, but there are circumstances in which one can interfere with it and no offence arise therefrom. An example has been mentioned to me. One finds extremely interesting bins on the side of the road—which contain grit to be used in icy conditions. If someone turfs out the grit it is not at all clear whether that is an offence. Also, a lot of damage is caused by such actions as the undoing of fuse boxes at the bottom of lamp standards, which are a nuisance to the public and are sometimes dangerous.
There is also a provision which will interest people who are sometimes very aggrieved by the parking of heavy commercial vehicles. There is also a prohibition on the parking of commercial vehicles—that is, those over 13 cwt.—in residential streets between 9 pm and 8 am. This is rather wider than the present law, which is limited to 3-ton vehicles. People in the Greater Manchester area should know that it can be activated by people living in five houses affected, so if five neighbours feel that they have a grievance in this respect, they will now have a remedy.

Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke: In what clause is the new remedy?

Mr. Silvester: It is in clause 26.
Incidentally, dealing with clause 26 brings me to the first petition. I shall not spend much time on it, although I have no disrespect for the Central Electricity Generating Board. The CEGB has objected to seven clauses. They are mainly technical objections designed to ensure that the board's interests as a statutory undertaker are safeguarded. I am assured by the promoters that the board's objections can be met. We are expecting that in due course the petition regarding those objections will be withdrawn.
Two other clauses in this part have attracted petitions. It is right that I should spend a little time on those, because they affect a lot of people. They concern footpaths. We all know how steamed up people rightly get about the preservation of footpaths, particularly in a highly urban area, where people rely upon them for recreation. First, clause 28 allows footpaths and bridle paths to be stopped up for 18 months provided that an alternative can be made, if possible, but even if an alternative cannot be made. The main function of clause 28 is to prevent people from moving across areas where land reclamation schemes are taking place.
As hon. Members will know, in the Greater Manchester area there are considerable areas of land which are undergoing reclamation. They are very large areas. Very large, fast-moving earth-moving equipment is being used. This petition was raised against the clause by the Ramblers Association and the Peak and Northern Footpaths Society.

However, I am pleased to say that agreement has now been reached and the petition is being withdrawn because an amendment to the clause has been incorporated, which will limit this power to circumstances in which reclamation schemes are being undertaken.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I understand from those who are concerned about footpaths that they feel that some progress has been made towards meeting them. However, will the hon. Gentleman give some assurance about the length of time for which closures will be permitted under the new wording as opposed to the old wording? There have been one or two reclamation schemes in the Greater Manchester area which, for one reason or another, have dragged on for periods of two to three years. Many people are anxious about footpaths being closed or diverted for that length of time. It seems reasonable that 12 months should be the maximum time for which a footpath should be closed, even for a reclamation scheme.

Mr. Silvester: The Bill provides for a period of 18 months. As I understand it—I shall check this before the end of the debate—there is no power for an extension of that period. That is the limit. It is rather more than 12 months, but not as bad as two to three years. The amendment does not alter that. It is concerned with limiting it to reclamation schemes. The petition has been withdrawn, and I understand that the petitioners are satisfied.

Mr. Bennett: The Ramblers Association and the Peak and Northern Footpaths Society, as bodies, have been parties to the discussions. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has many constituents, as I have, who are concerned about footpath matters, and some of those do not seem to be as happy as the bodies that represent them. That may be because they have not been made fully aware of what is intended in the Bill.

Mr. Silvester: I hope that the hon. Member will be practical about this. Of course some people in every constituency are concerned about these powers. But reclamation scheme can be very dangerous. I was told today of a foreman who was working on such a schemes and who parked his car nearby and an earth-moving vehicle was driven over it, not only squashing his car but burying it. It was never found again. Hon. Members can imagine the circumstances if that were a child or someone out for a walk. It is a very difficult matter, but this is a reasonable compromise.
I can speak only personally, and I have not had any representation—although this is a fairly recent agreement—to the effect that people are not satisfied with the agreement that has been reached.
The second petition dealing with this area concerns clause 30, which is about bulls on footpaths.

Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Emotional bulls.

Mr. Silvester: They may be emotional bulls, indeed. My hon. and learned Friend is right. The Wildlife and Countryside Bill tries to overcome this problem by stopping the bulls from becoming emotional. It does that by the simple process of either restricting this to bulls of less than 10 months of age or by putting the bulls in fields with cows and heifers. I do not make light of this matter,


because it affects ramblers very much. I regret the fact that I am not competent to know whether that practice has the desired effect on the bull.

Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: That depends on the bull.

Mr. Silvester: Yes, and on the heifers and cows. All that I can say is that this petition has been received from the National Farmers Union and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They dispute the desirability of the clause, which would exclude bulls from any field through which there is a footpath, largely on the ground that it would interfere with the methods of dairy production which operate in some parts of the country. As I believe that there is no cow at all in my constituency, I am at a slight disadvantage in dealing with these matters. I can only say that the petition will, of course, be carefully considered and will have to be balanced against the legitimate requirements of ramblers, who are naturally cross when they see a "Beware of the bull" sign at the end of a path. That is enough to put anybody off, and they do not go far enough to see whether there are any cows there. Nevertheless, I do not think that it would be satisfactory to have a requirement in Manchester which differed for the national requirement under the Wildlife and Countryside Bill now before Parliament, which may therefore lead to a change in this Bill in Committee.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: My hon. Friend will recognise that the Bill also covers parts of my constituency, where the incidence of bulls is rather greater than it is in his. When legislating on these matters, it is important to bear in mind that ramblers, whose interests we all respect, are out for purposes of recreation, but, that if we impose disabilities and inhibitions upon the farming industry, we are dealing with the problems of people whose livelihood is at stake. It is at least arguable that they should have priority over the legitimate rights of those who are simply exercising their enjoyment and recreation. I put it to my hon. Friend that, although the Bill deals for the most part with the requirements of an industrial community, we must bear in mind that it also impinges upon country areas. These are problems of some moment and concern to those who work in the countryside.

Mr. Silvester: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that point so clearly. I think that it is well recognised by the promoters of the Bill that they have to achieve this balance. I therefore reiterate my earlier point that the Committee may wish closely to examine this provision.
I do not think that it would benefit the House for me to deal with any further clauses in part IV. However, if hon. Members wish, I shall be happy to do so.
Part V deals with public health. Again, it contains a large number of clauses. For the convenience of the House, I shall group them as follows. A number of clauses deal with matters relating to food. Clause 32 deals with hawkers of food, clause 36 with the disposal of food waste, and clause 54 with floating restaurants, which are now being developed and which at present are not covered.
I draw particular attention to clause 53, which empowers magistrates temporarily to close food premises or stalls where danger to health exists. They will now be

able to do that in 24 hours instead of three days, as under the current law. One recognises that there is great danger in not acting swiftly in this matter. I therefore hope that the House will approve of that provision.
There is also some further control of personal services. Clause 31 requires hairdressers and barbers to be registered. They can already be controlled by the local council, provided that it knows where they are. The purpose of registration is to know where they are.
Clause 33 provides a new power covering acupuncture, ear-piercing, electrolysis, which I am told is the removal of unwanted hair, and tattooing. Again, these areas have grown substantially. A serious outbreak of hepatitis B in Birmingham in 1977 arose from lack of control of these matters. As this area is developing, it is wise for the local council to pay regard to the necessary standards of hygiene.
A series of clauses deals with what I might call demolition and dust as well as with rats and mice. They are clauses 35, 37, 38, 39, and 40. The latter is an extensive clause dealing with demolition, to be read in conjunction with schedule 2. Clause 51, empowers the local council to lop trees which are a nuisance to neighbours because they block out the light.
A further series of clauses deals with buildings which in one way or another are unsatisfactorily sealed off. For example, if a house has been broken into and needs to be sealed off from trespassers, that is covered by clause 41. If it is derelict and needs to be made safe, that is covered by clause 42. If it is inadequately fenced, that is covered by clause 44. I do not think that I need go through them all.
Clause 52 is an interesting provision to deal with the circumstances, which I believe have occurred in the Greater Manchester area, in which the council undertakes the demolition of a building but is unable to recover the money for weatherproofing the building next door and therefore does not do so. That loophole is now covered.
I draw particular attention to clause 56, a clause of some significance dealing with dealers in second-hand goods. The clause requires the registration of such dealer—a provision which I understand covers antique dealers. It imposes upon them the requirement to keep a record of their purchases, with a power of entry for the police to inspect. They may not buy from children under the age of 16. As one might expect, there are various exemptions, such as secondhand cars, charity shops, scrap metal and waste paper, and places where the secondhand material is secondary to new material. The chief constable is anxious to have this power. Apart from any control over health that it may provide, it will also help in the tracing of stolen property.
There are then a number of miscellaneous matters with which I shall not weary the House. I draw attention only to those which affect a large number people. Clause 43 starts the business of controlling dogs. At the moment, the police can take away stray dogs as a matter of anti-rabies and general control. The clause empowers the districts to appoint people to do that. It would, of course, cover organisations such as the RSPCA which could also undertake this work.
Clauses 49 and 50 will be helpful to tenants in certain cases. Clause 49 enables the local authority to re-establish electricity when it has been cut off for reasons other than non-payment of money, that is to say, where something


is defective, and to recover the cost from the landlord. Clause 50 will require a proper supply of lighting to a domestic property.
Part VI deals with law and order, and includes a provision which I did not realise was necessary. Clause 59 enables policemen to enforce byelaws. I had always believed that they were able to do so, but apparently that is not so.
Clauses 60, 61 and 62 relate to safety standards of stands erected temporarily and cover tents and marquees where there could be a big public meeting. They particularly deal with fire precautions.
Clause 62 contains regulations concerning touting. It empowers the local authority to designate certain areas and streets where touting for hotels, restaurants and entertainment and hawking, selling, photographing—people coming up and flicking a camera when one has not asked them to—and hiring transport may not take place without the consent of the council. That may sound a wide provision, but clause 62 contains the word "importuning". The provision is not to cover casual use but to stop people from being bothered to an extent that amounts to being importuned.
As I know that it is of great interest to hon. Members, I shall return to clause 58, which relates to street processions.
Part VII deals with fire precautions, and I shall not go into in detail. It covers such premises as tall buildings, which are becoming increasingly important.
Part VIII deals with flammable material stacked in the open. A number of agreements have already been reached with, for example, brewers and others likely to be affected. However, it does not cover such situations as the disastrous Woolworth's fire in Manchester. Such provisions have to be on a national basis.
Part IX is the subject of a petition. It deals with night cafes and entertainment clubs. The petition is a joint one from Kentucky Fried Chicken and the Takeaway and Fast Food Federation Limited. It covers clauses 76 to 85. It requires the registration of entertainment clubs, such as private cinema clubs, and night cafes open between 11 pm and 5 am, and allows the council to impose conditions such as fire regulations. It does not cover licensed premises. It no longer covers takeaways. There was objection and they were withdrawn. However, the provision still covers takeaways where food can be consumed on the premises. That is the basis of the objection by Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Provisions against clubs have operated in Manchester since 1975 and seem to be perfectly satisfactory. Provisions against night cafes have operated in Manchester since 1971, and 16 are currently registered. There is a power throughout the country under the Late Night Refreshment Houses Act 1969, but a licence cannot be refused and conditions are not attached to it. The council can only limit the hours in which the premises can be open. Greater Manchester therefore regards this as an important power which it will seek to sustain in Committee despite the petition.
Clause 79 raises penalties to £500—which is in one case the same but in others higher than current Acts, where they exist—where the club or cafe is habitually used for unlawful purposes and nothing is done about it. It relates to undesirable characters lurking about a cafe at night.
Part XIII, clause 113, is similar and deals with entertainment licences. Basically, there are two kinds of licence. The licensing justices can operate over most of

Manchester and under a national Act, but there are many local Acts that not only provide special powers but also cover boxing and wrestling. The effect of the clause is to extend the provision to boxing and wrestling generally and to make the licensing by the local authority rather than the justices. However it is a clause that has to be adopted by the council and does not operate automatically. If the council still wishes to use licensing justices, presumably it can, although it would not be able to control boxing and wrestling.
Parts X and XV deal with street trading outside and inside Manchester, where the systems are different.
Part XI deals with finance. Clause 98 enables rates to be collected. Where the tenant pays the landlord and the landlord does not cough up, it enables the local authority to proceed against the landlord rather than the tenant, which is right. The provision may be superseded in general law, in which case it will be dropped in Committee.
The only other clause that I shall draw to the attention of hon. Members in that section is clause 100. It is of interest to those who help the local authority in a voluntary capacity. The provision is contained in other local Acts. For example, people who take out residents of social security homes or the disabled are not covered as employees by the insurance policy of the council. The clause enables them to be covered.
Parts XII, XV, XVI, XVII, and XVIII either continue existing local Acts or absorb them into the general law in respect of airports and districts. Part XIV adopts the general law in relation to markets and slaughterhouses.
Coming to part XIX, at present anybody can use the coat of arms of the local authority on a commercial operation without permission. Clause 158 seeks to protect the coat of arms and to stop that from happening.
There are two petitions outstanding in relation to clauses 162 and 164. Clause 162 relates to hackney carriages. As a result of activities in the other place, the clause, as it has now emerged, extends metered driving from anywhere within the district plus four miles around the district, provided that that four miles is wholly within the area of the Greater Manchester council. I hope that that is clear. In practice, it means that when I get a cab to Stockport station I shall be covered, whereas previously I was not. However, in a cab from the airport to Cheshire, one would not be covered.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The point that causes most annoyance is when people arrive at Manchester airport and are not clear what will be covered by the Act. As I understand it, if I arrived at Manchester airport, I would be entitled to go four miles outside the Manchester city boundary. However, it would still mean that those who live within, say, six or seven miles of the airport, in parts of Stockport, Sale or Partington in Trafford, which are within Greater Manchester but more than four miles from the city, would be in difficulty. I hope that we shall have clarification on that.

Mr. Silvester: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The main cause of annoyance arises out of the airport use. I am sorry that the Bill is now as it is rather than as it was previously. I should like to see the development of Manchester airport, and it is a pity if anything happens which makes that more difficult.
Under the Bill as amended in the other place, a passenger who arrives at Manchester airport and wants to


go anywhere within the city of Manchester is covered by the law, and it is a metered ride. The position there is exactly the same. If the passenger wants to go to Stockport, or somewhere else within the Greater Manchester area, at present it is not a metered ride, but it will become so provided that the journey is not more than four miles outside the Manchester city boundary. However, if a passenger wishes to go south into Cheshire he is not covered, and will not be covered after the enactment of the Bill. Therefore, he will have to negotiate his fare in the existing way. I understand that the charge is often an extra 50 per cent.

Mr. Stanley Orme: What the hon. Gentleman has described is a great source of annoyance to many people in the Greater Manchester area. The taxi drivers claim that they cannot pick up fares in other authorities' areas. Because they are precluded from doing that when they are coming back, they say that they must charge one and a half times or one and a third times the fare. I have had instances of people being charged double fares for those journeys. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the matter, why does he support the clause?

Mr. Alfred Morris: While the hon. Gentleman will not wish to talk out the Bill by speaking at much greater length, would he care to comment briefly on the representations that have been made to right hon. and hon. Members by and on behalf of the taxi drivers in the Manchester area?

Mr. Silvester: I support the clause because it is half a loaf. The Bill as now proposed will alleviate the problem about which the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is concerned. The taxi drivers wish to retain the restriction. That view is moving in the other direction. I believe that it is in the long-term interests of all the citizens of Manchester, including the taxi drivers, that the provision should be loosened up as much as possible. I regret that we have not gone further, but I am prepared to accept what we have. I hope that the House will not find its being only half a loaf a reason for throwing out the clause.

Mr. Orme: If the taxi drivers could pick up fares on their way back in the other districts into which they go, that would remote some of their arguments for charging the present excessisve fares. Is there any provision in the Bill that will allow that?

Mr. Silvester: I understand the point. The taxi drivers' petition is to retain the restriction. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is not covered by the Bill. It would require a degree of agreement that is probably not forthcoming.
If the taxi service were a Greater Manchester council service, it would be possible to apply that kind of provision across the whole county. It has not been thought fit to make it a county service. I am happy to continue discussing the matter, but I am aware of the time, and I do not think that I can add anything further.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The major problem in Greater Manchester is that the right to ply for hire as a taxi driver involves buying the licence plate. That should not have happened, but it has happened over the years.

Unfortunately, the licencne plate changes hands for very different sums in the different parts of Greater Manchester. The result is that those who bought plates in Manchester and Salford feel that it would be unfair to allow someone who has bought a plate for a much smaller sum in one of the other districts to operate in the same area.
In equity, we should be trying to abolish the system of buying and selling licence plates, which has produced considerable anomalies for people in the area. It has also imposed considerable hardship on those who want to become taxi proprietors, because they must pay large sums to obtain their plates, and they then have to try to protect their investment by pressing for what really are restictive practices.

Mr. Silvester: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. The provision is not in the Bill, and it was not one of the matters raised by the districts in bringing the Bill forward as a joint promotion. The hon. Gentleman may well be right, but for the provision to be introduced something should have been done long ago to persuade the districts.
If hon. Members will forgive me, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) will deal specifically with clause 164 on the direct labour organisation of the city of Manchester. However, I draw attention to the fact that there is a petition relating to this matter. The clause is concerned with the power of the direct labour organisation to undertake construction work in other parts of Greater Manchester, a power that has been added to the Bill by the city of Manchester as a joint promoter. It has been objected to by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers and the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors.
I come finally to clause 58, dealing with processions. I apologise if hon. Members think that I have been a long time in getting here, but, since nobody else is to talk about the rest of the Bill, I think it important that the person who introduces it should do so. I should like to see the clause retained. It is probably superfluous for me to say what it involves, as I am sure that every hon. Member knows. Some hon. Members have been concerned with other county Bills and know far better than I do.
The clause provides for three days' notice before processions take place. That is in line with the Select Committee's proposals and with the West Midlands County Council Act. Generally, the promoters have tried to make sure that the clause is on all fours with similar provisions operating elsewhere. The Government have expressed a wish through my hon. and learned Friend the then Minister of State, Home Office—the reference is col. 114 of Hansard for 21 January 1980—that as far as possible there should be consistency. The provision now applies to the counties of Merseyside, Cheshire, West Midlands and the Isle of Wight.
The need for the clause is generally recognised, and is strongly advanced by the police. As some hon. Members will know, because their names are on it, there is a petition, with a wide range of names on the list of those who oppose the clause. I am surprised to see that they include the Friends of the Earth.
The chief constable has provided information about the number of times marches have taken place in the Greater Manchester area and about the size of the problem. His figures for the five-year period 1974–78 show that there were 2,462 marches and processions, involving 22,578


police officers of various ranks, and attended by over a quarter of a million members of the public. In the 12 months of 1979, there were 591 marches attended by 157,000 members of the public and involving 5,000 police officers. I quote those figures to show that this is not a minimal problem. It has cost considerable public expenditure and the diversion of police resources.
It is important for the House to recognise that it is not simply a question of the policing of the procession and the counter demonstration if it arises. Police resources are not limitless. This large number of police, if involved in these duties, are not doing something else. It should be reasonable for the House to allow the chief constable and his officers to plan their resources. The central ingredient of a power of notice is that the police should be able to deploy their resources to the most efficient purpose. If the police are required to make a large number of officers available in anticipation of an event that is difficult to gauge—they may get information on the grapevine or, in the case of the National Front, by direct conversation—it is extremely difficult for them to plan.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman quotes the number of processions that took place. On how many occasions did the organisers fail to give notice?

Mr. Silvester: I have details of four recent occasions when the chief constable and his assistant claim that there was unwillingness to give information, which led to an unnecessary use of resources.

Mr. Bennett: What were they? Will the hon. Gentleman give the information?

Mr. Silvester: I am happy to do so. There is the famous case—I suppose the most famous—of the National Front march in October 1977. It was decided to transfer the march to Longsight after discussion with the National Front when there was no forthcoming information regarding demonstrations on the other side. A case is quoted in March 1980 when the Tameside Trades Council arranged a meeting in Ashton-under-Lyne which eventually had to be moved because it was not possible for the meeting to take place. A Left-wing group stated its intention to go ahead with a meeting in March at the West End community centre but would not say when the meeting was to take place.
In April 1980, the National Front proposed to hold a march in the Oldham town centre. Intelligence was received from an association known as CARL, its Oldham branch, that it would be organising a counter-rally. The police were unable to get information regarding that rally. On Sunday 23 November 1980, the National Front assembled in the centre of Bolton for the purpose of holding a march and demonstration. Again, opposing factions, eventually numbering 1,000, assembled at the Bolton institute.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I think that the Bolton occasion was the same as that at Oldham which the hon. Gentleman has described. Although there is no need to give notice in the city of Manchester and many other parts of Greater Manchester, there happens to be a requirement to give notice in Oldham. If it is so important to get this new power, why did not the police use their existing power in Oldham? I understand that they took no action against any of the people involved at Oldham who failed to give notice, although there is a requirement to give notice. If

the police did not bother to use the existing law in Oldham, what is the point of asking for such power in the rest of Greater Manchester?

Mr. Silvester: That is a fair point which I also asked. There is, however, a practical problem. There are three categories of notice in Greater Manchester—24 hours, 36 hours and 48 hours, depending on which part of the county one is situated in—or nothing. It varies from place to place. There are different rules in adjacent districts. It is difficult operationally to make any good sense of that situation. If these powers are to exist, it is only reasonable to have a uniform practice, known to everyone, which the police can observe across the whole county. I do not know whether any prosecutions will result from the occasion in November. It is, however, not unreasonable to say that the police, when faced with these circumstances, would not wish to follow up these powers in the patchwork way that they operate. I doubt whether notice of 24 hours is of any great value unless shorter notice, as this Bill permits, as did the West Midlands Bill, is practicable.

Mr. Orme: The overwhelming number of cases given by the hon. Gentleman concern the National Front. The chief constable has power, if he thinks that there will be danger of public disorder, to prohibit those demonstrations. He did not prohibit any of them. He put on excessive protection for those demonstrations at colossal cost. The proposal in the Bill is absolute nonsense. That is why many of my hon. Friends and I oppose it. This matter, if it is to be dealt with, cannot be approached on a patchwork basis. It has to be dealt with on a national basis. Stronger action has to be taken. The chief constable in Greater Manchester has not given the type of lead that is necessary.

Mr. Silvester: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view about the chief constable. We are concerned with a situation in which there has grown up over the last few years a measure of agreement in different parts of the country and in a Select Committee of the House about the nature of the power that should be operated. There is no immediate prospect, so far as one can ascertain, that the Government will take over this clause and introduce it. If that were the case, we would not have to pursue it. We cannot wait for something that may not happen. We are obliged to proceed with the Bill before the House. There is no way in which it can be argued that we are doing anything in the Bill that has not been done elsewhere. It is on all fours with what has become established practice.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Practice varies between two proposals. Fifty per cent. of the promoters of these Private Bills have agreed to drop the procession clause altogether and to require no notice and allow the law to stay as it is. The other half have opted for this sort of compromise. It is unfair to suggest that what has happened in the West Midlands, Cheshire, Merseyside and the Isle of Wight is the national none. They are the exceptions rather than the rule.

Mr. Silvester: That is not really right. I accept that some areas do not have the power and that some people have not sought the power. It seems to me that where the power is sought and where it is recommended by a Select Committee of the House, the terms of the power, as set out in the Bill, are not substantially different. So far as possible, we have lined ourselves up with powers already taken. It is clear that this is the central point. It would be unfair of me to prolong the debate.

Mr. George Cunningham: I intervene not through any connection with Manchester but in a home affairs capacity. The hon. Gentleman spoke as if there were no prospect of the Government coming forward with a proposal on this subject. He must be aware that the whole subject of public order is currently being actively considered within the Home Office and that a Home Office Minister has conceded that the matter would be better dealt with in national legislation ultimately when the review is completed.

Mr. Silvester: That may have been an overstatement. I did not intend to imply that it would never happen. In any event, "never" is a meaningless word in politics. Although the review has been proceeding, it has not been possible for us to receive an indication that it will be completed within a stated time. That means that we would be left with the option of dropping the Bill in anticipation of what is yet to come without a specified date or proceeding as we are. If there is a national power, presumably it will be the same as or will supercede the local Act.
I have been as clear as I possibly can. There will be many points of difference during the course of the Bill. If it should be necessary, and if it is thought that I have not made something clear, I hope that I shall be given the opportunity to do so at a later stage.

8 pm

Mr. Jim Callaghan: This is a Private Bill and one of a series of major Bills promoted to retain provisions repealed by the Local Government Act 1972. A general powers Bill of this nature deals with many topics that affect a great many people and it must be scrutinised with great care. I know that, from experience, as I spent many days in Committee on a similar Bill, namely, the County of Merseyside Bill. I have already heard many of the arguments that have been advanced this evening. I feel that it is a privilege that I am able to compare the provisions of both Bills.
The Local Government Act 1972 established new local government areas in England and Wales. In section 262 it repealed, with certain exceptions, the provisions contained in private Acts in force in certain areas. The powers conferred by those Acts ceased to have any effect in metropolitan counties such as the Greater Manchester metropolitan county at the end of 1979. Unless they are re-enacted by means of other legislation, we shall be in some difficulty with the law.
The 1972 Act provided a unique opportunity for a thorough revision of all local legislation. From 1984 onwards local legislation will be well documented and much more readily understandable by the public. I am glad to say that the Greater Manchester authority seized the opportunity for a thorough revision of all its local legislation. The Bill represents the outcome of months of scrutinising existing powers, examining and disregarding a multitude of provisions whose worth has long since passed away and identifying the relatively few provisions that have shown the need for their retention or enactment. The work has constituted three and a half years of detailed study and close collaboration between officers of the county councils and the 10 district councils involved. That has been done at a cost of £150,000. That work should cut out much of the dead wood and greatly reduce the bulk of local law that is cluttering the statute book. It is a tidying-up operation that will benefit everyone.
The principal issue that the Greater Manchester council raised in its memorandum is as follows:
The greater Manchester authorities are of the opinion that there is a large corpus of valuable local law which has not been overtaken by national legislation. If action were not now taken to preserve it, that whole body of law would have been lost automatically at the end of 1979.
I believe that that is true. Private Bills are necessary so that local authorities are enabled to carry out certain works and certain projects that they desire to undertake. That is generally accepted. There are matters of general public importance that can be decided only by Parliament, especially if there is a conflict of interest.
In one of the clauses there is such a conflict. I draw attention to clause 30, which has already been referred to by the hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) and for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). It states:
(1) No person shall drive or lead or cause to be driven or led in any street or public place in a district any bull unless it is properly secured and kept under proper control and no person, being the occupier of any field or enclosure through which there is a footpath or bridleway, shall permit any bull to be at large in that field or enclosure.
(2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.
I warmly applaud those subsections. I know that the clause is supported strongly by the various footpath organisations. I have had considerable correspondence with the Ramblers Association, the Footpaths Association and various other bodies, which are extremely concerned. One of my constituents, Mr. David Lee, who is one of the chief officials of the Footpaths Association, is extremely concerned about these matters. He has written to me and lobbied me.
There is a conflict between those who want to use the countryside for recreation purposes and those who want to earn a living as farmers. I am sure that clause 30, which I warmly applaud, will be in conflict with the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, which is passing through another place. There is great concern among ramblers and country lovers about the effect of that Bill. It is proposed that a farmer should be able to graze a bull in a field containing a public right of way as long as the bull is not of a recognised dairy breed or if it is accompanied by a cow, cows or heifers. Legislation along these lines already applies in Scotland. However, there is a difference. Most of the footpaths in Scotland are on the higher ground and mountains and well above the fields in which bulls graze. The position is not quite the same in England.
In England and Wales there are local byelaws that vary from one part of the country to another. We should like the variations to be tidied up. However, in about three-quarters of England and Wales there are byelaws in force that prohibit the grazing of bulls in fields containing public paths. Those byelaws will be overridden by the proposed legislation, because I believe that the provisions in clause 30 will be overruled.
The Ramblers Association believes, as I do, that bulls should always be regarded as potentially dangerous, irrespective of their breed, and regardless of whether they are with cows and heifers. The safety division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food agrees with that view. It has stated:
Bulls are always a potential danger and it is advisable to treat them with extreme caution.


The National Union of Agricultural Workers has said that it considers bulls to be an extremely dangerous species of animal, despite the long outmoded legal classification of them as domestic. That union should know. In 1979 alone three farmworkers were killed by bulls and 27 were injured. A pensioner was killed when walking near Thornaby in Cleveland in October of last year.
Civil servants drafting the Wildlife and Countryside Bill have been persuaded that bulls running with cows are safe. They may be safer, but they are definitely not safe. Footpaths are often used not only by ramblers who can take care of themselves but by families out for a stroll, by pensioners and by children taking a short cut to school. It is vital that bulls and walkers are kept apart. Surveys have shown that walking in the countryside is a popular recreation which is becoming more popular each year. By introducing the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, which will make walking in the countryside more dangerous, the Government are doing a great disservice to a substantial section of our community.
I ask the Government to clarify the position relating to the conflict of interest between the Ramblers Association, the farmers, clause 30 and the proposals contained in the Wildlife and Countryside Bill relating to the countryside, which will shortly be introduced into the House. The hon. Member for Withington mentioned that point. Which Bill will take precedence? The Bill that we are discussing has taken three and a half years to bring to the Floor of the House, at a cost of £150,000. With all that time, money and energy spent on it, I wonder whether it will take precedence. Are the promoters of the Bill wasting their time and money? I sincerely hope not. I invite the Government to tell us.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I shall not detain the House for long, as many hon. Members wish to speak and time is limited.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) for the enormous amount of work that he has carried out on the Bill. I shall confine my remarks to the two most controversial clauses, namely, clause 58 which deals with notice of street processions, and clause 164 which deals with the Manchester direct works department. Both issues appear to make Opposition Members see red. No doubt we shall have a stormy debate about them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Withington discussed clause 58. The issue of notice of street processions has been debated in the House over and over again. I am sure that we are all aware of the arguments both for and against. Indeed, we should know the arguments off by heart. In 1980 various Acts were passed for the counties of Merseyside, Cheshire, West Midlands and Isle of Wight. All contained a modified processions clause. Clause 58 is identical with clauses that have been passed in other Acts for other areas.
When we debated the West Midlands County Council Act 1980 my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, previously the Minister of State at the Home Office, said:
There are grounds for debating the provisions of the new clause, and even in its present form it may not be regarded as suitable by every local authority that wishes to have a notice of procession provision in local legislation.
However, I believe that it is desirable that some measure of uniformity should be achieved wherever the inclusion of such

requirements in local legislation is felt to be necessary. No doubt local authorities will wish to look at the new clause when considering how they wish to formulate any proposals that they intend to put before the House."—[Official Report, 21 January 1980; Vol. 977, c. 114.]
We are not simply copying the West Midlands. In the Greater Manchester area there is a real need for this clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Withington quoted a letter from the chief constable of Greater Manchester. Despite some uncomplimentary remarks by Opposition Members, I believe that the chief constable is doing an extremely good job. He more than anyone else realises the difficulties.
The clause is required because of an omission from the Public Order Act 1936. That Act empowers the chief constable to impose on marches such conditions as he considers necessary to preserve public order. One Opposition Member referred to a patchwork pattern. That is exactly what we have in Greater Manchester. In certain parts of Greater Manchester advance notice may be 24 hours, 36 hours or 48 hours. We are seeking to bring some conformity to the system and to get rid of the patchwork pattern.
Hon. Members will be aware that clause 164 has a stormy history. By it Manchester city council seeks powers to extend the operations of its direct labour building organisation. There is a great deal of difference between the council of the city of Manchester and the Greater Manchester county council. My wife is seeking reelection in May to the Greater Manchester county council. She is fearful that every time anyone confuses the two councils it costs her support. Whereas the city of Manchester appears to have got itself into a financial tangle, the Greater Manchester county council appears to operate its affairs in a different manner.
Currently the direct labour organisations are confined to carrying out new construction work only for their own parent local authority, although maintenance may be performed for certain specified public bodies. Manchester city council, through this clause, is seeking to allow its direct labour organisation to carry out new building and other works for other local authorities in the Greater Manchester area. In addition, it wishes to perform work for the police, the water authorities, the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive and the health authorities in the county of Greater Manchester. If allowed, that will provide a precedent for all other authorities wishing to extend their direct labour operations. That would be in complete opposition to the Government's general policy towards direct labour organisations.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, when he replies, will point out that under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 the Government have introduced proposals which will subject direct labour organisations to more stringent financial and management controls, and which will make councils more accountable for the operation of their direct labour organisations. Those proposals are intended to operate from April 1981 and will be supplemented by a code of practice and delegated legislation now in the process of preparation.
The intention is that direct labour organisations should face effective competition under conditions that they have never yet experienced so that local authorities and the


general public can make a more realistic assessment of the efficiency of direct labour organisations and the value for money obtained from their operations.
I quote in aid a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment during the debate on Second Reading of the 1980 measure. He said:
It would be wise for the direct labour organisations to prove that they can work effectively within their own areas before we consider whether we should extend the areas in which they trade."—[Official Report, 5 February 1980; Vol. 1159, c. 225.]
My right hon. Friend's words should be borne in mind tonight because competition will never take place on a completely comparable basis.
Direct labour organisations are not the same as private building contractors. Of necessity the private sector must organise its operations to cover its costs, maintain a positive cash flow and make a profit. Direct labour organisations are not subject to such onerous disciplines. The proposed new system goes much of the way to compensate for the economic gaps in direct labour operations by demanding considerable competition under controlled conditions and by requiring direct labour to make a return on capital. Such a system must be followed vigorously.
There can be no case for extending direct labour operations until the system has been proved. Since direct labour organisations are not and never will be totally commercial, they should not engage in operations in which public money is exposed to increasing risks. It is wrong to confer these powers on Manchester city council alone. It is wrong in principle to allow local authorities to disperse ratepayers' money on commercial ventures, albeit in the public sector alone, when there is already a fully developed private sector whose function is to take risks. After the Bill obtains its Second Reading, I hope to move an instruction on clause 164.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) had a formidable task in moving this the Second Reading of this blockbuster of a Bill with 180 clauses. I was grateful for the elucidation that his speech provided, I noted carefully the arguments that he advanced in relation to the politically sensitive clause 58, which requires organisers of processions to give 72 hours notice of a procession. Frankly, I subscribe to the view that such measures should be the subject of national legislation.
I seek an explanation of three other clauses. First, I draw the attention of the House to clause 154, which deals with Manchester central art gallery. My interest in the art gallery goes back a number of years. In concert with my parliamentary colleagues I was involved in acquiring for the city of Manchester that delightful picture by Stubbs of the cheetah with Indian servants. We were also involved in representing Manchester's claim for that impressive portrait of a notary by Matsys. Consequently I am surprised at clause 145 and am anxious to hear an explanation.
The clause indicates that the art gallery and all works and other objects of art therein
shall be held in trust by the Manchester council for the benefit of the citizens of Manchester".
Subsection (3) says:

Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) above, the Manchester council may from time to time sell or exchange any works or other objects of art for the time being acquired by them",
and subsection (3) (a) says that
the Manchester council shall, if reasonably practicable, consult with the donor or with the personal representatives or trustees
of those who have made art gifts or grants to the city. That is a formidable power that the city council is taking on behalf of the art gallery. What will be the attitude of the council? What will be the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government when they read that the art gallery has the power to sell off works of art that have been gathered over a century or more?
The art gallery seeks that power. One might call the provision the "art mart" clause. One of the possible consequences is a boom in auctioning works of art. If Manchester seeks the power, other local authorities will follow suit. I do not know what it will do for the citizens and art lovers of Manchester, but it will certainly fill the pockets of art auctioneers. One is entitled to ask what is envisaged by the art gallery committee in Manchester in seeking such an additional power.
I turn to clauses 162 and 163. Concern has been expressed on behalf of Manchester's taxi drivers about clause 162. One can understand their anxiety about the extension of the metered driving restrictions. Clause 163 highlights the long-standing acrimony between taxi drivers and private hire drivers. I invite the House to consider what is involved. The proposal is that a private hire vehicle shall display no
sign, notice, mark, illumination or any other feature".
and that no such features shall be displayed even
in the district on or from any motor vehicle"—
I understand the feelings of taxi drivers about the activities of private hire drivers, but perhaps we are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Is there not a better way of dealing with the activities of unscrupulous hire drivers? If a private hire vehicle is to contain no sign, notice, mark or illumination, the private hire driver is denied the right enjoyed by the owner of any business, commercial or other vehicle operating on the streets, roads, and motorways of Manchester. It is almost an inalienable right of the owner of a vehicle to advertise on the vehicle his commercial or business interest.
I do not seek to give any advantage to the private hire owner or operator. Some of them are highly unscrupulous. My sympathies in those conflicts are on most occasions with the taxi cab operator. However, we should not introduce such restrictions to deal with that problem.
I want to deal briefly with the arguments in regard to the direct works department—dealt with in clause 164—to which reference has been made. I do so because the largest, the most efficient and most successful direct works department in the country is located in the city of Manchester. A large element of that direct works department is in my constituency in Openshaw at the Bessemer Street works. I am concious that this undertaking, with an annual turnover of £49 million, employing 4,400 workers, 400 of whom are young apprentices, ought to command the support of the Government. I should like an assurance from the Minister that he will support the Greater Manchester council in this clause and oppose the petition to which the hon. Member for Withington referred in moving the Second Reading.
The existence of the Manchester direct works department has been for the benefit of the ratepayers of


Manchester. Its very existence has discouraged the sort of tendering that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) identified when he was chairman of the direct works department and broke the ring that existed at that time in tendering for the contracts for cement. His was a signal achievement at that time by breaking that commercial ring.
In my constituency recently, I was delighted to see the opening of the one hundred thousandth house built by Manchester's direct works department. Of even greater interest is the Openshaw village development in my constituency, which was built almost entirely by apprentices of the direct works department. At a time when the number of apprenticeships in Manchester in the building industry is contracting in the private sector, the direct works department's encouragement of young people in acquiring the necessary skills to carve out for themselves a career in the building industry is, indeed, a great compliment to the enterprise, not only of the direct works department, but of the city council as a whole.
I hope that either the hon. Member for Withington or the Minister will comment on the points that I have made.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): It might help the House if I were to intervene at this stage in order to give the Government's view on the Bill.
As the House has heard, the Bill is one of a number promoted by local authorities primarily to save what they consider to be essential local legislation which would otherwise lapse under section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972.
There are only three clauses on which I should like to comment at this stage: clause 58, which provides for 72 hours' notice for street processions; clause 164, which seeks to extend Manchester city council's existing direct labour powers to enable the council to carry out construction works for other councils and public authorities throughout the Greater Manchester area; and clause 30, on bulls.
Perhaps I might add to what was said earlier about there being two items that would make hon. Members see red; it is that red is something that bulls do not like to see. All I can say to assist the House—and the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Callaghan)—on this point is that my right hon. Friend takes the view that the pasturing of bulls in fields crossed by public paths should be regulated by general legislation rather than by byelaws, as is the case over almost all of England and Wales at present, or by local Acts. But his detailed views on the subject will be made known in his report to Parliament before the Bill is considered in Committee.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that the existing powers in Greater Manchester are to restrict bulls from going into fields with footpaths, and that in an area such as Greater Manchester a very large number of those footpaths are used by young children, who are not able to distinguish between a bull and a cow or to distinguish between dairy and non-dairy herds? Does he agree that it would be disastrous to introduce the proposals in the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, which is now being considered in another place, into places where there is a meeting between rural and urban areas? Surely, if he knows anything about Greater Manchester, he is aware

that, particularly along the Mersey and on the north side, there are substantial amounts of green land which have to be fanned, and that to have bulls loose in such areas would be extremely dangerous for children under 10, many of whom use footpaths in those areas.

Mr. Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman might try to tempt me to stray from the path. I hope that the bull recognises a cow or a heifer when the time comes. I cannot say more than that my right hon. Friend will be reporting to the Committee. All these matters will be for the Committee to decide, assuming the House gives the Bill a Second Reading.
I have listened with considerable interest to the debate on clause 58. As all hon. Members have pointed out, the Government are currently conducting a review of the Public Order Act 1936 and related legislation, and that review is considerng the question whether there should be a national requirement to give advance notice of processions.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) will understand the difficulty that I have in responding to his invitation to commit my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to a date for the announcement of the conclusions of the review. I understand that most of the comments on the Government's Green Paper arrived late and that some are still trickling in. The issues involved are complex, but my right hon. Friend is pressing ahead with the review as quickly as possible and will announce the outcome as soon as he can.
The Green Paper, which was published by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland in April last year, recognised the strength of the arguments in favour of a national provision of this sort. The police need time to make local arrangements for an event and, where necessary, to organise policing assistance from other forces. A notice requirement can serve as the formal trigger for discussions between the police and the organisers of a march so that disorder and disruption can be kept to a minimum.
The Green Paper, which I am sure that all hon. Members have read, also recognised the difficulties which the organisers of a march might face in complying with such a requirement—for example, where there was a genuine reason to organise a march at short notice. However, the Green Paper suggested that it might be possible to find ways round such difficulties and that on balance the advantage might lie in favour of a national notice requirement.
My right hon. Friends are now giving careful consideration to the comments they have received on the Green Paper and to the fifth report of the Home Affairs Committee on the law relating to public order, which, incidentally, as the House will recall, recommended in favour of a nancinal notice requirement. But the Government have not yet come to any firm conclusions on this or any of the other matters being considered in the course of the review. When he has come to his conclusions, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make known the Government's views on the review as soon as is possible.
In the meantime, the Government's position remains that it is for the promoters of local Bills seeking provisions requiring advance notice of processions to make out a case for such a requirement on the basis of local need or the


special conditions in the area. In the case of Greater Manchester it is clearly relevant that there are provisions of this sort in the existing local legislation which this Bill is intended to replace. In fact, they exist in 10 parts of the county, including Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale and Wigan. The chief constable considers that the existing provisions have proved useful in the past. Hon. Members who oppose the clause do not appear to have offered any evidence that these requirements, which have existed for very many years, have created any difficulties for either the police or the organisers of marches. It seems therefore that the problems they have identified are more imaginary than real.
I note, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) said, that the form of the clause is modelled on the provision which the House agreed a year ago should be included in a similar Bill promoted by the West Midlands county council. Since then that model has been adopted in other local Bills. As far as I am aware, it has not hitherto been proved to cause difficulty. I hope that the House will share my view that, wherever the inclusion of advance notice requirements in local legislation is felt necessary, it is desirable that some measure of uniformity should be achieved. On that basis, I commend the form of this clause to the House.
In view of the existing provisions in the Greater Manchester area and the problems which processions in the area can cause for police and residents, it does not seem unreasonable that the promoters of this Bill should seek to retain an advance notice requirement in the Bill and that they should wish to make the requirement a uniform one throughout the area.
In relation to the question whether there should be a national requirement of advance notice, clearly there are wider factors to be taken into account and I must not prejudge the outcome of my right hon. Friends' review. But on the strict basis of the needs of Greater Manchester, I suggest to the House that the case for the inclusion of clause 58 has certainly been made out.
Let me turn now to the other main provision that has provoked controversy, that covering direct labour provisions. We believe that clause 164 is unnecessary and undesirable for three main reasons. First, direct labour organisations exist to serve the needs of their own authorities. They have no role in major works outside their direct responsibilities; and the powers now proposed are irrelevant to the city council's statutory functions, the House recognised that when it passed the Local Government, Planning and Land Act.
Secondly, ratepayers' and taxpayers' money should not be risked in commercial ventures where there is already a fully developed private sector quite capable of fulfilling the needs of any public authorities in the county for building services. Thirdly, as a matter of principle, we feel that public enterprise should not be expanded at the expense of the private sector.
The promoters claim that in order to make the best use of resources a wider base of activities is necessary. Without this it is claimed that the work force will have to be reduced and that the apprentice training scheme will suffer as a result. These are not accepted as good reasons for the powers proposed.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I can understand the motivation behind the Minister's comments, but does he realise that there is very little apprentice training in the private sector of the building industry in the Greater Manchester area? His comment, if given effect, will mean unemployment for the 4,400 workers of the direct works department in Manchester and the loss of some crucially important apprentice jobs in the city.

Mr. Finsberg: If Manchester expands its activities and wins contracts from private builders by any methods it cares to choose, the workers in those concerns will be put out of their jobs. In our judgment, there is no reason why the Manchester direct labour organisation should be artificially protected from the effects of any decline in building construction work. There is no good reason to suppose that if training by direct labour organisations declines there would be an overall decline in the amount of training undertaken. I think that secretly the right hon. Gentleman knows that.
The Government's legislation on direct labour organisations contained in part III of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 is aimed at controlling the activities of direct labour organisations, enforcing adequate accounting standards and requiring direct labour organisations to be exposed to fair competition. This will ensure that the performance of direct labour organisations is measured against an appropriate objective standard—the rate of return on capital employed—and will give the Secretary of State the power to close down consistently unsuccessful organisations. No one with a scrap of impartiality could object to that concept. We do not wish to see Manchester's direct labour organisation roaming round the rest of the county looking for work.
My right hon. Friend will set out his views on this matter, and others, in his report to Parliament. They may then be considered in detail in Committee. I recommend that the Bill be given its Second Reading to enable that to be done.

Mr. Ken Eastham: This is a long Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Callaghan) said, it took many hours of expertise and deliberation by the various authorities to formulate it.
I shall address my remarks to some of the comments that have been made on clause 164. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) said that Labour Members saw red whenever mention was made of direct works. That is true. Labour Members with considerable experience become indignant when they hear organisations being maligned in this Chamber, as they have been on many occasions. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale added insult to injury when he sneered at Manchester's so-called financial tangle. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the financial tangle is quickly being resolved, despite the problems that the Government have caused. The country has been starved of financial aid by this Whiz kid from the Department of the Environment who has introduced a recipe for disaster for local government.
As we saw a few weeks ago, Ministers come and go. However, despite ineptitude and bad management from above, local government will survive, will give a good


account of itself and will benefit ratepayers. I was extremely disappointed to see that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale had tabled a motion for an instruction. It is an outrage that they should do so.

Mr. Montgomery: Why?

Mr. Eastham: The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale is not a Mancunian, but we Mancunians do not believe that the clause is in the interest of ratepayers. The Greater Manchester ratepayers and those of the 10 districts can benefit. In many ways they have indicated that they want the services of the city's direct labour organisation. It is obvious that no shame will be expressed, even though there is very little basis for some of the attacks that seem to be mounted against the Manchester organisation.
Conservatives throughout the country like to talk about competition. They pride themselves on saying "Let us have competition. It is good for business. Competitive pricing is of benefit to everyone." The building industry is potholed with problems of bad management, incompetence and all the other recipes that leave monumental disasters for local authorities to pick up when private builders disappear.
Clause 164 does not request privilege for direct labour organisations; it requests only the right to compete. But now Conservative Members seem to express a constant fear of competition. A great deal of time has been spent on this clause. It has already gone through a detailed investigation in the House of Lords. Many hours of evidence have been submitted by experts. It is noticeable that at the end of the deliberations in the other place there was a recommendation to this House that, in the interests of good local government, the clause ought to be approved and that no stopping motion should be introduced.
Obviously the interests of private builders are involved. One has only to look at the names of some of the petitioners—the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors and so on. Can Conservative Members demonstrate to Opposition Members when such bodies have been concerned about the ratepayers' interests? They have submitted their petition in the interests not of the citizens, but of their own financial gains.
The serious situation in the building trade is the direct result of the Conservative Government's policies. My God, they are in a mess. One can understand the desperation being felt by the private sector. Obviously it wants to move into local government contract work because of the disastrous situation now facing it as a direct result of the Government's policies, particularly from the Department of the Environment.
It might be useful to illustrate the disastrous situation in the building industry. About 38,605 people are registered as unemployed in the North-West region alone. That represents 24 per cent. of the work force. The national figure is 294,538, or 20.1 per cent. That gives some idea of the desperate plight in which builders find themselves as a result not of our policies but of yours. Yet these days they approach Labour Members daily and talk about massive liquidations and bankruptcies. They appeal to us in relation to the mess into which they have been placed by your side. They then turn to your side and say "We are in a desperate situation. At least hold the fort by denying direct labour organisations their rightful place in the competitive world of building."

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not involve me in this debate.

Mr. Eastham: Much propaganda and expense have been used to smear direct labour organisations. Very often, we have taken the trouble to read the most jaundiced kind of despicable documents that one could ever see. Many thousands of pounds have been expended on drawing up a smokescreen to try to convince people that they are not getting benefits. Have hon. Members ever known of private organisations spending thousands of pounds on a propaganda campaign just because of ratepayers' interests? Let us be honest and frank. The only reason why they spend this money is that it is in their own interests to do so. That has been the situation constantly when these spurious attacks have been made, often completely without foundation, against local government.
Recently I was in a position, fortunately, to look at some examples of the final accounts of the Manchester direct works organisation. I have with me a document that was presented to the city council. It is a current document, dated 17 December 1980, illustrating 14 major capital projects which the direct works organisation had completed. These were finally costed, and the figures were agreed with the city architect and the city treasurer. Of the 14 projects three were overspent and 11 were underspent. As against the original estimate, there was a beneficial balance of £1,161,355. There is another column that indicates the additional savings made as against the next lowest tender if a private contractor had been awarded the contract. That shows £398,327. In all, there is an indication of a direct saving and benefit to the ratepayers of £1,559,682.
We constantly have to listen to claptrap from Conservative Members about the failures of direct works organisations. It is untrue. The facts have been verified, not by politicians, but by highly paid, professional, honourable officers, engaged for their expertise and answerable to district auditors. That is one example. I am sure that if my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherlanc0 catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be delighted to reinforce my argument with further examples of the direct results and benefits that we have achieved in the city of Manchester.
In the past, we have been able to offer numerous services in the Greater Manchester area, often to authorities that are not Labour-controlled. Conservative-controlled authorities have invited Manchester's direct works organisation to come to their areas to assist them with their building problems. That is the situation today. Numerous Conservative authorities are using those benefits.

Mr. Montgomery: Which authorities?

Mr. Eastham: I understand that the Greater Manchester authority is Conservative-controlled.

Mr. Tom McNally: Not for long.

Mr. Eastham: It will not be for long, as my hon. Friend says. When Tameside was Conservative-controlled, it used the services of the direct works organisation. Two other Conservative-controlled authorities, which I shall not name, invited the direct works organisation to come in and assist them. At present we are providing considerable maintenance and office


building work. We are also involved in considerable work for the police. I am beginning to understand that the police prefer to have an efficient organisation to come in and assist them.
With regard to the Bill, we are simply appealing to the House that Manchester should be able to offer these services to the water authority, the police authority and the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive. I remind the House that before reorganisation in 1974 we were carrying out some of the very services that we seek to have included in the Bill. We built the police stations. We carried out a great deal of work on the airport and on many other projects, to the highest standards and the greatest satisfaction.
This is a blatant political attempt to kill off competition. If the organisation is inefficient, the Minister has the power to close it down. There is no requirement for him to appeal to anyone. If the organisation is inefficient, he makes the decision and he can take action. Today the Minister tells us that the organisation will be denied even the opportunity to continue its work. If it were inefficient, he could close it down. We believe that Manchester's direct works organisation is second to none in the country. We merely make the plea for the opportunity to continue to offer benefit to the ratepayers. Let it be remembered that ratepayers want the best of services and the best of standards at the lowest possible price.

Orders of the Day — Greater Manchester Bill [Lords]

Mr. Tom Arnold: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) on the way in which he introduced the Second Reading of the Bill and the comprehensive guide that he gave to its large number of clauses. The Bill seeks to secure for the Greater Manchester council a degree of uniformity over the whole area of the county as a result of the changes that initially took place in the local government legislation of 1972.
It was interesting that exchanges took place between my hon. Friends the Members for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and for Withington, and subsequently Opposition Members, on the vexed question of bulls and public paths. I was also interested to hear what the Minister had to say. The debate is a forerunner of the debate on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, which will in some respects prove a great deal more controversial than the Government appreciate. Like other hon. Members, I have received a great many representations on the issue. It is causing a great deal of local concern.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) dealt most ably with the difficult question covered in clause 164 concerning the activities of the direct works department in Manchester. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) said that my hon. Friend was not a Mancunian. However, I remember that when I lived in Manchester in the old constituency of Cheetham, the activities of the direct works department in Bessemer Street were something of a scandal in the city. The hon. Gentleman talked of efficiency, but in those days the department did not tender for competition at all. If we have grave doubts about what the hon. Member is proposing, let me state that it has something to do with the fact that at that time the activities of the department, when not shrouded in obscurity, were surrounded by a great deal of controversy. It was difficult to find out exactly what was happening. One argument that the promoters adduce in favour of the clause is that the direct works department has been reformed and that the move to allow it to compete for work elsewhere in the country will add to competition. That is doubtful.
Let us consider the housing situation in those parts of Stockport which fall under the Manchester overspill and are the responsibility of the city housing department. A great many houses there are urgently in need of repair. When one considers the work that the department could usefully be undertaking in that respect, it is clear that there is some way to go before the case is fully established that it should carry out work that at present it does not even compete for.

Mr. Eastham: Does the hon Gentleman know whether the money was available for the direct works department to do the maintenance work? Charges are often made against the department, but when they are checked in detail it is found that the finance is not available for the work. Otherwise, I am sure that the department would be delighted readily to recruit the necessary staff to do the work.

Mr. Arnold: That is a matter for the city of Manchester. My point is that the controversy about the direct works department has lasted for many years. The case is not proven for allowing it to extend its activities.
I wish to concentrate on the other controversial clause, that which deals with processions. The House has moved a long way from the debates that took place in early 1979 in the closing stages of the previous Parliament. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) contributed to the debates on both the West Midlands County Council Act and the County of Merseyside Act. I should have thought that he would be the first to recognise that the promoters of those local Acts recognised that changes were needed. It should be pointed out that, whereas the original proposal was for seven days' notice, we are now facing a request for three days' notice, which is a considerable reduction in time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman also recall that during the same period there were discussions with south and west Yorkshire and Tyne and Wear, and they have all agreed to take the clause out? There was originally a common clause, which was to be seven days. Some local authorities have now agreed to take the clause out entirely on the basis that it is totally unnecessary or that they prefer national legislation. Only a few have insisted on trying to force through some provision, which is a poor compromise and does not satisfy either side in the argument.

Mr. Arnold: There is the nub of the argument: is there, or is there not, a need in the circumstances of Greater Manchester? The burden of my case is that there is. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in the debates of 1979 the burden of the argument was that in the specific circumstances of Merseyside and the West Midlands the power was needed. I shall refer to the national case later and deal in more detail with the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.
A fair measure of compromise has been achieved. The present proposals involve reducing the period of notice from seven days to 72 hours—this is very important when dealing with the earlier arguments of the hon. Member for Stockport, North about coping with spontaneous processions and demonstrations and dealing with counter-demonstrations and processions—or, when 72 hours' notice cannot be given, giving notice
as soon as reasonably practicable
before a march commences. That is a considerable move from the position originally adopted in 1979 when the first of these Bills came before the House.
Notice is to be given to the chief constable and at any police station in the district affected. The exemption is for processions "commonly or customarily held", such as bona fide funeral processions. Finally, there is a requirement on the chief constable to
issue a code of practice giving guidance to the organisers of processions
on matters with which they will have to deal, such as the need to make arrangements with the police. There is a further requirement that a prosecution can be initiated only on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Clause 176 contains a requirement that there be a defence of diligence whereby anyone who can show that he had acted diligently and responsibly will have a defence in law against a complaint or claim brought against him. The proposed powers are now set out in a modified and extremely reasonable way.
However, the central question remains: is there a need, in the circumstances of Greater Manchester, for this additional power to be conferred upon the police? I

understand that the chief constable takes the view that there is an omission from the Public Order Act 1936 with regard to the giving of notice of processions and demonstrations and it is to fill that gap that he believes that this power is necessary. In the 1979 debates we find that the Home Secretary in the Labour Government was clearly of the view that there had been incidents involving public order the requirement to give notice would have been extremely helpful. He referred to the deplorable incidents in Birmingham, Ladywood, when 97 policemen were injured, and to the National Front march at Levenshulme, which was referred to earlier.
My hon. Friend the Member for Withington, in reply to a great barrage of questions from the Labour Benches, was asked to name dates, places and incidents. He gave details of instances in recent years in Greater Manchester when notice was not required. He was right to do that and laid to rest the somewhat noisy interjections that were made. There have been a number of cases involving large numbers of demonstrators where notice was given and where, in the opinion of the chief constable, had notice not been given, the situation for the police would have been very serious. In the letter which the chief constable sent to the secretary of the Greater Manchester Council and which was subsequently circulated to all Members, he wrote:
I can only stress that had any of the above similar events taken place without prior police involvement the consequences in terms of public order would have been extremely damaging to both members of the public and to property".
That is a powerful argument, one that we should not ignore.
I deal finally with the point made a number of times by the hon. Member for Stockport, North. I think that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who is not now present, also murmured about it earlier. It is that, even if there is a proven need for this kind of legislation, it should surely be introduced nationally. I am not convinced of that. In large conurbations such as Manchester, the West Midlands and Merseyside there are particular circumstances that require that such legislation be held closely under local control. One of the great virtues of the way in which we organise our policing is that we have, not a national police force, but local police forces, and have legislation backing these arrangements up. It is best left to the discretion of chief constables and police authorities to decide how to deploy their forces and how to deal with difficult and potentially dangerous situations.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is helpful to have the power in Greater Manchester, why does he not think it necessary to have the same power in London, in South or West Yorkshire, or on Tyne and Wear?

Mr. Arnold: I should like again to take the hon. Gentleman back to the debate in 1979, in which he took part. The then Home Secretary said that, as the person responsible for the police in the Metropolis, he had examined the whole question very carefully and had come to the view that the provision was not necessary in London. However, he did not go on to say that it was therefore not necessary elsewhere. He said that he was content in the first instance to leave it to the discretion of chief constables in other cities to look at the precise


circumstances that they had to deal with, and to deal with them accordingly. I believe that that was a very sensible position to take.
In contrast to what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury suggested earlier, the then Home Secretary did not think that there was a case for amending the Public Order Act 1936. The right hon. Gentleman took the view that, if local authorities believed that such a power was needed, it was presumably on the basis of a careful examination of local circumstances, and that to the extent that our parliamentary arrangements had always recognised the validity of local Bills, so be it.
I believe that in the circumstances of Greater Manchester, circumstances of very difficult policing operations in recent years—and there is no reason to suppose that there will not be other demonstrations and incidents that will stretch the resources and capability of the police force to its limits—the power is needed and will be a healthy one to have on the statute book. I welcome the inclusion of the power. I hope that, to the extent that it has been modified from the original proposals that the House debated on other Bills in 1979, we recognise that it is a fair compromise.
One of the matters that have come out in tonight's debate is the extraordinary range of interests involved in such legislation. It demonstrates the tremendous variety of activity and of places that the country of Greater Manchester embraces. I wish the Bill well. I am sure that it will meet the needs of many people.

Mr. Robert Litherland: My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) has covered many of the points that I wished to make. I give him my support. As ex-members of Manchester city council, we are both extremely proud of our direct labour department and its continued success. We think that the measure is another attack by the private sector, through the Tory Party, on direct labour organisations.
The case of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) was very narrow and biased. There seemed to be some confusion in the mind of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold), who found it hard to distinguish between maintenance and capital works.
There have always been arguments about direct labour departments. They have always been a thorn in the side of the private sector, which feels that the sooner we put an end to direct labour organisations the better. This has already happened over maintenance. Any work worth over £50,000 has to be tendered for. These are the more lucrative parts of maintenance work—the painting of estates, the rewiring and the reroofing—which have been pushed to the private sector. It is obvious that the mentors of Conservative Members who have made the proposition today are the National Federation of Building Trades Employers. We are accustomed to such attacks.
We are not arguing that every direct labour organisation should have the powers to carry out construction for other authorities. We argue that Manchester's direct labour organisation is unique. It is a large and successful department. It is the largest comprehensive public works department in the country. This is my reason for saying

that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale does not have a clue about direct labour organisations and knows nothing about Manchester's direct labour organisation.

Mr. Montgomery: In the middle of this hymn of praise to Manchester's direct labour organisation, would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the report of the district auditor in August 1976?

Mr. Litherland: Once again, that shows the ignorance of the hon. Gentleman. That report dealt with maintenance and had nothing to do with capital works. The chief constable's report, which amounted to only four pages, showed that Manchester had nothing to answer for. It was vindicated. This shows the hon. Gentleman's confusion over direct labour organisations.
Manchester's direct labour organisation has built over 18,000 houses, schools, using traditional and other systems of building techniques, libraries, fire and police stations, and also sheltered accommodation, built by apprentices under the supervision of training staff. We have also built a large educational and recreational project. We are not amateurs in the game. We are in the big league.

Mr. Eastham: Will my hon. Friend illustrate to Government Members some of the catastrophes experienced by the private sector and the number of firms that went bankrupt, leaving our direct works organisation to pick up the pieces to try to complete construction jobs following those disastrous efforts?

Mr. Litherland: As my hon. Friend says, there were numerous occasions when a private firm went into the tendering process, put in a low tender, could not meet the commitment and went bankrupt. Direct works had to step in.
Direct works also operates in emergencies. Following the IRA bombing of the Manchester courts, we had the courts open by the weekend. This service element is neglected in our debates.
Manchester is a regional centre in close proximity to other metropolitan districts. Manchester has the expertise needed by neighbouring authorities. When one sees the system building, the catastrophes of tower blocks and deck access building, one recognises why Manchester direct works department is needed to build traditional type housing. Why should Manchester not be invited to tender if a local authority should so determine? I do not accept the argument that the Government should decide. It should be the prerogative of an authority to invite Manchester's direct labour organisation to compete with the private sector in the tendering process. That is all that is being requested. We are discussing the right of an authority to invite in the Manchester direct labour organisation and to ask it to tender if it so desires.
I am sure that the Manchester organisation will be invited in if the need exists. It appears from the letters that have been sent from major authorities that there is a need. The neighbouring authorities already recognise the enormous benefits to be derived from Manchester's direct works organisation and they like it to be in at the tendering stage. If a direct labour organisation with the expertise possessed by the Manchester organisation submits a price, the other authority knows that it is being given a realistic and responsible price for the job. The possibility of price fixing and monopolies and cartels is eliminated.
Manchester can undertake capital works and provide back-up services of an extremely high standard. The need


and the demand already exist. Neighbouring authorities already enjoy the maintenance services provided by Manchester. For example, in Salford a private contractor was maintaining lifts. They were in such a dangerous condition that it was decided to bring electrical apparatus into the chamber of the city council to prove the point. From that day onwards, the Manchester direct labour organisation has had the contract for lift maintenance in Salford.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Before my hon. Friend moves away from the important issue of contracts and tenders, will he inform the House of his experience with the cement ring in Manchester and the paint contract allegations in Manchester?

Mr. Litherland: It must be emphasised that the direct labour organisation does away with price fixing. We have had price fixing and allegations of price fixing in Manchester. It was Manchester that exposed massive price fixing rings for ready-mix concrete. A, smashed the price rings across the board. Clearly the ratepayers suffered. They were paying for the extra concrete that was being allocated to different jobs. It was only the direct works organisation that could take up the cudgels through the AMA to expose the price rings.
Recently there have been allegations of paint price fixing. The House is well aware of those shenanigans. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley said, the demand comes from authorities of varying political complexions, including Rochdale, Salford, Tameside and Trafford, which use the specialist services of lift maintenance and heating services.
The Greater Manchester police requested the Manchester direct works department to install and maintain alarm systems. There is demand for the services provided by the direct works department. The amendment would do a great disservice to the local authorities and public bodies in the area.
It is left to the discretion of a local authority to decide whether it should invite Manchester's direct labour organisation to submit a tender. That is a matter entirely for the authority concerned and it should be left to it. There is a demand for new construction and Manchester can supply that service. The Local Government, Planning and Land Act envisaged direct labour organisations carrying out maintenance and construction work for other authorities. We are talking only of Manchester.
The Bill direct labour organisations to produce detailed accounts of rates of return on capital employed. The Act emphasised that the Government wanted direct labour organisations to be competitive. It included a so-called safeguard giving the Secretary of State for the Environment power to deal with an individual local authority direct labour organisation if he decided that it was not operating in a satisfactory manner.
Manchester is in a unique position to offer its services. Its direct labour organisation has a turnover of about £52 million. It employs 4,400 operatives, 440 of whom are apprentices. It has a decasualised labour force. It has a first class record in safety, health and welfare. The spin-offs from a successful direct labour organisation are tremendous. Manchester offers local employment. It has an excellent record in training apprentices. Of the 800 apprentices at Manchester college of building, 300 come from Manchester's direct works department. Apprentices

are sent to neighbouring colleges of building which, without the intake from Manchester, would have to close courses. Lecturers would also become redundant. The fact that Manchester sends its apprentices to neighbouring authorities keeps open courses in those areas.
The training benefits are good for the construction industry, especially the private sector. On completion of full training in one of many crafts, apprentices can work in the private sector. One of my fears as chairman of direct works was that Manchester would become merely a training ground for the private sector. We not only offered an apprentice a job, but we offered him a career structure built into the direct works department.
We must ask ourselves why the private sector has a great fear of competition from the Manchester direct works organisation. It is already confined within its own boundaries. Local government reorganisation meant the loss of a great deal of construction work for Manchester. It lost its right to build police and fire stations. The contract for one police station which had already been won by competitive tendering had to be abandoned because reorganisation made it ultra vires to build for other county authorities. It is nonsensical that the Manchester direct works organisation cannot build schools for its own children within its own boundaries. That piece of reorganisation was nonsensical.
We all talk about competition. However, Manchester is a successful direct works department, confined within its boundaries and working under local authority rules, disciplines and committee procedures while the private sector can tender the length and breadth of the country—and can tender even within Manchester itself. What is the objection to one direct works department having limited powers to tender for another local authority? Does it make sense that the private construction industry is incapable of competing with one direct works department? During the Committee stage of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said that the Government did not want to bash direct works organisations, but only to make them more competitive. The Government should stand by their word and allow the Manchester direct works organisation to compete with the private sector if invited to do so by a neighbouring authority.
Letters have been received from leaders of authorities in Greater Manchester expressing their opinion that it would be desirable for Manchester city council to have those powers. Maintenance is already undertaken, so why not new construction work? It will reflect badly on the Government and on the private sector if, after insisting that competition is a stimulus, they are afraid to allow a single direct labour organisation to compete. Surely the Government are not so small minded as to wish to exclude direct labour altogether, There is no justification for that unless the private sector is obsessed with the determination to rid itself of any competition, however small, from a direct labour organisation.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale said that success should be proven. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley told of the success over the last four years when the organisation showed a profit of £1,161,000 in addition to the national saving involved in the next lowest tender for a project of almost £400,000. The figures come not from the direct works department but from the city


architect's final valuation and the city treasurer's costs. Manchester is successful, and we want to know why we cannot compete favourably with the private sector.
In the halcyon years the private sector abandoned Manchester. It did not want to build housing because of more lucrative projects elsewhere. However, the private sector has built some of the most diabolical deck access building in Hulme, Moss Side and Turkey Lane under negotiated tender. Some of the houses, although only eight years old, are now ready for demolition. That is why we have maintenance problems.
Some of the best property built by direct labour subsidises the rubbish built by the private sector. We say that the capital works programme is a success. It is a service that can be offered.
Manchester needs a rolling programme for apprenticeship training because of the Government's cuts in housing and the moratorium on building and modernisation. The neighbouring local authorities have a democratic right to invite Manchester to do work for them if their elected members take that decision. After the massive shift of responsibility, financial and otherwise, from local to central government inflicted by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act, that is a small concession. The need, the demand and expertise are there; the power should be there.
When the Tories took control of Manchester they held a two-year investigation in depth and came to the conclusion that the direct works department was beneficial to Manchester ratepayers. If that is so, it can be beneficial to neighbouring authorities. The National Federation of Building Trades Employers has an unfounded fear. We know that we shall always have to fight the battle, and we shall continue to fight it.

Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I have been dragged here tonight by my old and hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester), who quite properly pointed out that about 17,000 of my constituents live within the Greater Manchester area. I doubt whether any of them regard themselves as Mancunians, but they are considerably affected by this blockbuster of a Bill, as it was rightly described by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris).
I do not regret the three hours of education that I have had tonight, because it has opened my eyes to a remarkable development which those who follow local government more closely than I do take for granted. A great deal of this large volume deals with local conditions in a local way. The two controversial matters might be included in that. Certainly, the question of taxis at Ringway is a matter that should be dealt with by a local Bill.
There are large slabs of this proposed legislation which can in no circumstances be regarded as being peculiar to Manchester. Clause 33, to which reference has already been made, deals with acupuncturists, tattooists, ear-piercers and electrologists. There is a whole code regulating such activities and such persons. What is there special to the Mancunian acupuncturist that does not equally apply to those who come from the Tyne and the Wear, or from the Tamar, the Adur or any other part of the country? If it is necessary that such persons should be

registered and regulated, why is it to be done only on a local basis? Their activities are national; they are not local. They ply their trades or professions in a particular locality, but there is nothing about them that requires or demands that they should receive anything but national treatment.
The same argument applies to clause 56, which relates to dealers in second-hand goods. There is traditionally a great suspicion of the dealer in second-hand goods that he is also a receiver of stolen goods. Everybody knows the dangers there. But they are not peculiar to Manchester. No one suggests that second-hand dealers in Manchester are any more or less dishonest than those in Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield or anywhere else. The danger of dealing locally with what are purely national problems is that one drives the dishonest second-hand dealer, the dangerous acupuncturist, or whoever it may be, to the perimeter of the locality concerned.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To Darwen.

Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Precisely. There will be a flood of such persons to the simpler and less suspicious parts of the country on the perimeter of Manchester, where they will not be required to register because the question has not been dealt with on a national basis.
I should like to know why, when a matter is purely national and when there is nothing local about it, the practice should grow up of piecemeal legislation on something that is very controversial. I am not at all sure that the registration and structuring of these minor professions and trades are always right. Doing so produces a sort of ring, a closed shop, into which other people are not allowed, not because they are necessarily undesirable, but because they are competitive. The balance of interests is a difficult one to decide.
For years hairdressers—I think that there is something about them in the Bill as well—have tried to get a national standard, a national organisation and a national system, into which nobody is allowed without having acquired certain qualifications. The proposal is always resisted. To find it coming in, as it were, locally by the back door is a wrong use of local government legislation, because it is not a local problem.
When the Bill deals with what are truly and properly local problems, it is an admirable measure. I support 100 per cent. the stance taken by my hon. Friend the Minister on both the controversial matters.
I agree with the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) on the subject of bulls. The question of bulls in the suburban and surrounding areas of Greater Manchester raises different considerations from that of bulls in the deep countryside. I am open to persuasion on that, but he made what seemed to be a very good point. It is therefore right for it to be dealt with in a local Bill, at least to begin with.
Other than that, I regard the Bill as excellent. I hope that the little seeds that I am planting will eventually bear fruit when I say that matters that are not of a local nature, but which are necessary to be dealt with, should be dealt with on a national basis. They should not be made into a patchwork that provides asylums for the wicked acupuncturists or second-hand dealers around the areas in which they are simon pure.

Mr. Tom McNally: The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Sir C. Fletcher-Cooke), with his formidable legal logic, put his finger on what many of us have objected to in clause 58. If ever a patchwork was being established in the law, and if ever there was a need for a national debate on a matter, it is on the question of processions and marches. The hon. and learned Gentleman objected to piecemeal legislation on acpuncturist. It is even more important to state that the House objects to piecemeal legislation on a liberty so fundamental as that of marching, demonstrating and protesting.
The issue has been at the heart of much of our doubt about clause 58. The problems the clause seeks to deal with are not peculiar to Greater Manchester. Furthermore, they are not new problems. One of the worrying aspects of the statement by the promoters of the Bill was that it was needed because greater emphasis had been put on demonstrations and marches in recent years. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many democracies emerge with a peculiar element as part of their history. It is important for the legislators to guard them. The American town meeting is one that survives into a modem super State. The march has an honourable and radical tradition in the British system.
As long ago as 1798, the Stockport weavers set out to march to Macclesfield to try to radicalise the weavers of that town. They were stopped on the way by the police, and one might wonder whether Macclesfield would be more radically represented today had only those Stockport weavers got through.
As the hon. and learned Member so rightly said, this is a national issue that is being worked out in a piecemeal and patchwork fashion. It is right for hon. Members who represent the various parts of the country where this piecemeal approach has been implemented to express their doubt about it.
In Greater Manchester we have a double reason for doubt. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) gave us statistics. The need for this legislation has apparently arisen as a result of four problems during the past five years, three of which were instigated by the National Front. The people of Manchester would have greater confidence about how the powers are to be used if the police authorities had not used such an obscene show of police power some four years ago in order to protect the inalienable right of one fat little Fascist to march through parts of Greater Manchester. That single act caused a great deal of doubt in the Greater Manchester area about the judgment of the police authorities.
In addition, people would have more confidence about how the police authorities intend to use these powers if the chief constable did not indulge so frequently in a predilection to back shyly into the limelight and to hold forth on matters of political, but not necessarily of police, interest.

Mr. Arnold: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Greater Manchester police take sides in these matters?

Mr. McNally: I am suggesting that the chief constable's increasingly bizarre interventions into the political arena could make a great number of groups question how he will exercise the powers contained in this clause. I would say that the chief constable should pay

great consideration to references to the race relations industry and to unspecified political pressures being put upon him and the considerable doubts that exist within the Manchester trade union movement about how he handles his office. He holds an important office. The House is considering extending these powers and it is important that he should exercise them with the maximum concern and that he should not stray too far into the political arena.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I spy strangers. I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.

Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 115 (Withdrawal of strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:

The House divided: Ayes 28, Noes 114.

Division No. 43]
[9.55 pm


AYES


Allaun, Frank
Litherland, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
McCartney, Hugh


Cook, Robin F.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cowans, Harry
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cryer, Bob
Maxton, John


Davidson, Arthur
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Dormand, Jack
Spriggs, Leslie


Eastham, Ken
Tinn, James


Evans, John (Newton)
Welsh, Michael


Ford, Ben
White, Frank R.


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)



Hardy, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Haynes, Frank
Mr. Tom McNally and


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Gummer, John Selwyn


Arnold, Tom
Hamilton, Hon A.


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Haselhurst, Alan


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Hawkins, Paul


Banks, Robert
Hawksley, Warren


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hill, James


Beith, A. J.
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Biggs-Davison, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Blackburn, John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Knight, Mrs Jill


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Lang, Ian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Le Marchant, Spencer


Bright, Graham
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Brinton, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Macfarlane, Neil


Bruce-Gardyne, John
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Bulmer, Esmond
McQuarrie, Albert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Madel, David


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Major, John


Chapman, Sydney
Marlow, Tony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Mather, Carol


Clegg, Sir Walter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Colvin, Michael
Mayhew, Patrick


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dover, Denshore
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Moate, Roger


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Montgomery, Fergus


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Murphy, Christopher


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Myles, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Needham, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Neubert, Michael


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Newton, Tony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Normanton, Tom


Goodlad, Alastair
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Gorst, John
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Grenway, Harry
Penhaligon, David


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Pollock, Alexander






Proctor, K. Harvey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thompson, Donald


Rhodes James, Robert
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Rossi, Hugh
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Waddington, David


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waller, Gray


Shersby, Michael
Watson, John


Silvester, Fred
Wells, Bowen


Sims, Roger
Wheeler, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wickenden, Keith


Speller, Tony
Wolfson, Mark


Sproat, Ian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stainton, Keith



Stevens, Martin
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Mr. John Cope and


Stradling Thomas, J.
Mr. John Wakeman.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Silvester: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 34.

Division No. 44]
[10.05 pm


Alexander, Richard
King, Rt Hon Tom


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Banks, Robert
Lang, Ian


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
LeMarchant, Spencer


Beith, A. J.
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Berry, Hon Anthony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Biggs-Davison, John
Macfarlane, Neil


Blackburn, John
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
McQuarrie, Albert


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Madel, David


Braine, Sir Bernard
Major, John


Bright, Graham
Marlow, Tony


Brinton, Tim
Mates, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Mather, Carol


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Mawby, Ray


Bulmer, Esmond
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Mayhew, Patrick


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Chapman, Sydney
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Moate, Roger


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Montgomery, Fergus


Clegg, Sir Walter
Murphy, Christopher


Colvin, Michael
Myles, David


Cope, John
Needham, Richard


Cranborne, Viscount
Neubert, Michael


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Newton, Tony


Dover, Denshore
Normanton, Tom


Fairgrieve, Russell
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Penhaligon, David


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Pollock, Alexander


Fookes, Miss Janet
Proctor, K. Harvey


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Rhodes James, Robert


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rifkind, Malcolm


Goodlad, Alastair
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Gorst, John
Rossi, Hugh


Gow, Ian
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Greenway, Harry
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Shersby, Michael


Grylls, Michael
Silvester, Fred


Gummer, John Selwyn
Sims, Roger


Hamilton, Hon A.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Haselhurst, Alan
Speller, Tony


Hawkins, Paul
Sproat, Ian


Hawksley, Warren
Stainton, Keith


Hill, James
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Stevens, Martin


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Stradling Thomas, J.


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter





Thompson, Donald
Wells, Bowen


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Wheeler, John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wichenden, Keith


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wolfson, Mark


Waddington, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wakeham, John



Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waller, Gary
Mr. Tom Arnold and


Watson, John
Mr. Robert Atkins




NOES


Abse, Leo
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Allaun, Frank
McNally, Thomas


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp'tN)
Maxton, John


Cook, Robin F.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cowans, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Cryer, Bob
Morton, George


Davidson, Arthur
Roper, John


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Soley, Clive


Dewar, Donald
Spriggs, Leslie


Dormand, Jack
Tinn, James


Evans, John (Newton)
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Welsh, Michael


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
White, Frank R.


Haynes, Frank
Wigley, Dafydd


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Home Robertson, John



Litherland, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Mr. Ken Eastham and


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Mr. Jim Callaghan.


Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put accordingly and agreed to.

Mr. Montgomery: I beg to move,
That it be an instuction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out clause 164.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Objection taken.

Orders of the Day — Local Authority Grants (Scotland)

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move,
That the Local Authority Grants (Termination) (Scotland) Order 1980, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 December, be approved.
The arrangements for provision of Government grant towards revenue and capital expenditure incurred by local authorities are unavoidably complex. It is highly desirable that they should be kept under review. Improvements, and especially simplification, should be effected at any reasonable opportunity. That is the background to this order which proposes, with the full agreement of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, some simplification in the present arrangements. It originates in a review initiated by the previous Administration in 1977.
I should explain that the aggregate amount of support for revenue expenditure by local authorities is determined each year at the time of the rate support grant settlement. The Secretary of State determines an estimate of relevant expenditure to be incurred by authorities in the grant year and applies to that figure the percentage which the Government are prepared to meet. The result represents aggregate grant which is paid in part—some 8 per cent. at present—by way of specific grants, the balance representing rate support grant paid in aid of local


authority revenues and not hypothecated to individual services. The more that is paid by way of specific grants the less is available for rate support grant and vice versa. The balance between the two components does not affect the total.
Especially since local authority reorganisation, it has been common ground that specific grants should be restricted so far as reasonably practicable. The corollary is that the proportion of aggregate grant paid through rate support grant should be maximised, so recognising that authorities ought to have wide discretion to determine their own priorities. It was in pursuit of this general principle that the previous Administration recommended in their Green Paper certain criteria to be used in judging the continuing need for specific grants. These criteria were fourfold: first, to give special encouragement to expenditure on particular activities or services where there is a strong national interest; secondly, to compensate local authorities for the cost of activities engaged in at the request of central Government where the authority has little or no discretion over the amount of expenditure incurred; thirdly, to supplement block grant in relation to types of expenditure the need for which arises too unevenly, as between areas or years, to be reflected in the assessment of expenditure needs; and, fourthly, to assist a local authority in the financing of expenditure undertaken for the benefit of a wider area than its own.
A review set in hand in consultation with the convention, following publication of the Green Paper, identified a number of grants which failed to satisfy the criteria. When the Government assumed office, we were entirely content to allow the review to run its course and it has now led to the proposals embodied in the order. We propose, with the agreement of the convention, that three revenue grants and one capital grant should be discontinued effectively from 1 April.
I do not wish to take up hon. Members' time with a comprehensive account of these four grants but their main features may be summarised as follows. Under section 9 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 grant has been paid on the basis of 50 per cent. of loan charges incurred by authorities in connection with the acquisition of land for use as public open space. Grant payments are running at present at approximately £33,000 per annum. No new claims have been submitted since 1978. I assure the House that grant payable to the individual authorities currently receiving this form of assistance will continue to be paid. That is permissible under article 5 of the order.
Under section 76 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, grant of 50 per cent. has been made available on expenditure incurred by local authorities on the supervision of imported foodstuffs. Only six authorities have submitted annual claims and the total annual payment during that period has not exceeded £39,000. This is a minute sum placed in the context of total expenditure and grant, and discontinuation of the scheme was recommended as long ago as 1974. The order provides a belated opportunity to implement that recommendation.
Under the Education Authorities (Scotland) Grant Regulations 1948, 100 per cent. grant is available towards the costs incurred by authorities in removing war works. The grant served a useful purpose for some considerable time after the ending of hostilities in 1945 but very substantial progress has now been made in clearance of war works and no claims for grant have been received since 1976–77. The grant has clearly served its purpose.
Finally, I turn to a capital grant made available under section 97 of the Agriculture Act 1970 towards capital costs incurred by local authorities in provision of flood warning systems. Since the provisions of the Act came into force, three flood warning schemes have been grant aided at the rate of 50 per cent. of actual expenditure—two in 1974–75 and one in the current year. Accordingly, little use has been made of the provision for these grants and the amount involved relative to total capital expenditure by local authorities is small. Looking to the future, I am advised that there is little or no scope for further works of the kind covered by the scheme and no further proposals are in prospect.

Mr. David Steel: Is the current one in Selkirk?

Mr. Rifkind: No, the current one is in Haddington.

Mr. Steel: There are others to come.

Mr. Rifkind: If there are others to come, it will not be possible to finance them by this means if the order is approved. There will still be the opportunity for local authorities to cover such expenditure if they wish.

Mr. John Home Robertson: As the scheme is in Haddington—I am sure that the House will be grateful for that information—and as Haddington is in my constituency, will the Under-Secretary of State confirm that grant will be paid on the scheme?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that that is one of the schemes that is presently going through. It is covered by the grant and it will not be affected by the order now before the House.
In agreement with the convention, my right hon. Friend proposes to terminate provision for the grant along with the three revenue grants that I have already described.
I shall be glad to answer any further questions that may occur to hon. Members about the provisions of the order. As for the underlying principle, I draw attention especially to the origin of the proposals in the review initiated in 1977 and to the support voiced by the convention for the useful degree of simplification which they entail.
On that basis, I commend the order for approval by the House.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I might be prone to a charge of exaggeration if I were to describe the order as earth-shaking. The Opposition have no objection to it. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for his careful—at times I thought that he was almost over-zealous—explanation of the technicalities.
As I understand it, the idea is that the specific grants should be marginally shortened by the deletion of the four items referred to in the order. Presumably there will be a small compensatory increase in the needs element of the rate support grant. When set against the totality of local government expenditure, the sums involved are microscopic.
There is, first, the clearance of war works from education land. When the Under-Secretary of State made his announcement, he made it sound as if it were a triumph for the present Government. I notice that in 1976–77 someone claimed £1,074 under the order. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it seems unlikely that there will be


any continued need. Any war works still lying around in school playgrounds are more likely to be preserved as ancient monuments of educational value than to be demolished.
I accept that there is little point in keeping the flood warning system going as a specific grant. However, given the present winter, it may seem to some of us that flood warnings are relevant in Scotland.
The other two items involve slightly more substantial sums. Imported foodstuffs payments, which are dealt with under the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, amount to about £40,000. There has been a substantial number of payments of about £20,000 over the past five years.
I may have misheard the Minister when he referred to section 9 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966. I have the impression that he said that there had been no claims since 1978. That may be the position, but there were payments in 1979–80, for example, of £41,050.
There is no point in delaying the House in nitpicking or worrying over these technical matters. The abolition of these four specific grants will make no large impact on the total rate support grant of £114 million. I am not sure whether the present RSG has been adjusted to take account of the possible disappearance of these grants or whether there will have to be some tiny and probably difficult to detect change in the calculations to take account of the mournful death of these grants as a result of the passing of the order.
As I have said, the order will have no great impact. It stems from the review that was started by a Labour Administration. I understand that COSLA has no objection. There seems to be universal agreement that the funeral should be short. I shall not delay the House. I hope that the order will be given a smooth passage.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Local Authority Grants (Termination) (Scotland) Order 1980, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 December, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Highlands and Islands Shipping Services

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move,
That the draft Undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and Hay and Company (Lerwick) Limited and John Fleming and Company Limited, which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.
It may be for the convenience of the House if, with this, we take the other two motions on the draft undertakings.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): If that is the wish of the House, so be it.

Mr. Rifkind: The three undertakings before us tonight are made under the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act 1960. With permission, I shall decribe the general background and then speak about each undertaking separately.
The Government are committed through their election pledges to the survival and prosperity of the island

communities of Scotland. Hon. Members will recall that, with that aim in view, the Government introduced in July 1979 assistance for the ferry services to the northern isles through an undertaking with P and O. The Government also substantially increased in 1980 its grant to Caledonian MacBrayne's ferry services on the West Coast. It is our intention that the new and increased financial commitments will be maintained in the current year. Decisions on the levels of assistance for ferry services in 1981–82 will be announced soon.
In March last year my right hon. Friend issued a consultative paper on "Sea Transport to the Scottish Islands". That paper discussed the pros and cons of moving to a road equivalent tariff system of charging for ferry services and also discussed the possible benefits of route licensing and tendering. Comments on the consultative paper were received from a wide range of interested parties. My right hon. Friend and I are studying proposals in the light of those replies and hope to be in a position to announce our conclusions shortly. But major changes in the present basis of support for ferry services can only be achieved gradually over a period. In the meantime, we are concerned to carry forward the task of easing the burden of sea transport costs, especially freight costs, on services to the Scottish islands. The undertakings before us tonight are designed to take that process forward.
In promoting the undertakings the Government are seeking to achieve three aims in the interests of the islands' communities. The first is to reduce the time and cost involved to individuals and firms of importing and shipping out basic materials, which is thought to be a serious impediment to the islands' economies. As I shall explain, Government assistance will be clearly shown as a reduction in the normal tariffs of the companies concerned. While we cannot guarantee that shop prices will be reduced, I sincerely hope that firms take advantage of the reduced rates and pass on their benefits.
Secondly, it is a specific aim to reduce particularly the cost of exporting island products, helping to make them more competitive with the mainland. That should provide a stimulus to existing firms and encouragement to potential firms. With that in mind, we have sought to provide a higher level of assistance on traffic from the islands to the mainland.
Thirdly, we are seeking to redress the balance of support between bulk carriers and ferry operators to the islands. There is competition at the margin and the bulk operator, especially on the West Coast, has increasingly been at a disadvantage as we have increased the assistance towards ferries. I am accordingly proposing a degree of special assistance to Glenlight Shipping. I stress that our aim here is to serve the interests of the islanders and not any particular company.
I now turn to the undertaking with Shetland Line. The purpose of this draft undertaking is to allow Shetland Line to make tariff reductions on the containerised general cargo services which the company operates between Grangemouth and Lerwick. The company also operates services carrying oil related goods from Grangemouth to Sullom Voe. The Secretary of State is proposing to assist only the non-oil services. The tariff reductions which Shetland Line will be able to make will be the same as those which P and O already offer with Government support on services to Orkney and Shetland. In other words, Shetland Line's freight charges will be reduced by 42½ per cent. for freight going south from the islands and


by 12½ per cent. for freight going north to the islands. In the view of the Government, which has been confirmed in a number of discussions with Shetland Islands council and Orkney Islands council, that percentage reduction arrangement will attract the greatest benefit to the islands' economies.
I must emphasise that this is not a deficit grant to a loss-making company. It is a direct Government subvention to enable specific tariff reductions to be made for the benefit of the users of a particular service. The Secretary of State proposes to pay to Shetland Line a grant which will be equal to the amount of revenue which the company forgoes as a result of making rate reductions requested by him, subject only to small adjustments to reimburse the company for any extra costs directly related to the operation of the undertaking.
If the undertaking is approved, and the scheme I have described comes into force, it will cost around £20,000 in this financial year assuming that the subsidy scheme will start on 1 February. That assistance will be met out of existing public expenditure provision. A full financial year's assistance at current rates and current prices would cost some £250,000.
I should now like to speak about Hay and Co. This is a Shetland-based firm which carries exports from Shetland, and imports—principally fuel and building materials for local construction work—into the islands. In principle, the draft undertaking with this company is the same as that with Shetland Line. However, there are some differences in practice between the operation of the two undertakings. Hay and Co. does not operate a single service to one mainland port. Although it offers a public service to Shetland, it is a service geared to the customers' requirements. The company's two vessels therefore operate from a number of ports. Because of the diversity of the traffic handled by the company, it is our intention—until a clear pattern emerges—to have in the first instance specific cases referred to the Department for approval of assistance. Some of the goods the company carries are taken direct from Shetland to the Continent. Other cargoes come direct from the Continent to Shetland. Given our present international obligations, it will not be possible to assist these cargoes.
A further difference is that much of the traffic which Hay and Co. carries into the islands is for resale on its own shop premises. The undertaking contains a specific clause which requires the company to pass on the benefit of and tariff reductions on these items directly to the final consumer in Shetland. There will therefore be direct and visible benefit from this assistance to consumers in the islands.

Mr. J. Grimond: Does that mean that subsidies will not be payable on shipments to the Continent?

Mr. Rifkind: That is correct. Because of our international obligations in relation to the payment of subsidies to commercial concerns, it would not be appropriate for a subsidy on international journeys to be provided to a particular company.
Other than the remarks that I made prior to that intervention, the undertaking with Hay and Co. provides much the same detailed safeguards and technical features as the undertaking with Shetland Line. The Secretary of State proposes, if the undertaking is approved, to

introduce a scheme of precentage rebates from 1 February. This is likely to cost some £15,000 in the current financial year and expenditure in a full financial year at current rates and current prices would be some £150,000. This will be met out of existing public expenditure provision.
The third company covered by the undertakings before us tonight is Glenlight Shipping. Glenlight is the principal private sector carrier of bulk cargoes on the West Coast. Perhaps this is better known as the puffer trade, although the days of the traditional "Para Handy" vessel are long past. Over half Glenlight's trading comprises services within the area covered by the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act.
These Highlands and Islands services operate at a loss at present and the size of the company's losses has increased over the last year partly as a result of a combination of the effects of the recession and the costs of rationalising and improving the crane equipment of the Glenlight fleet. This modernisation is of course designed to make the company's Highlands and islands trading profitable. In the short term, however, there is little prospect of the company meeting its losses from increased freight charges as these would be so great—and would have to be unevenly applied between the islands—as to produce a transport cost which we would consider as unbearable by the largely very remote communities served by the company.
The Secretary of State is therefore proposing to give limited direct financial assistance to Glenlight for a short interim period to enable the company to maintain its existing levels of service. We propose, therefore, to introduce a scheme of assistance which will enable the company to continue to provide its present level of service while it completes its rationalisation programme to slightly larger vessels and improves the cargo handling abilities of these vessels.
This is not, however, to be a simple deficit grant. The Secretary of State proposes a combination of a short-term contribution towards any trading deficit made on the company's Highlands and islands services and percentage rebates on its tariffs. This will allow the Government, first, to preserve Glenlight's services to the islands by a limited subvention to the company; and, secondly, to provide assistance directly to the islands' communities through reduced transport costs.
In addition, the system is designed to allow the phasing out of the deficit subsidy with a measure of Government assistance being shifted annually from the contribution to deficit to further percentage reductions in rates. The "hump" in costs caused by the transition to more appropriate and efficient vessels will thus be evened out and the company will be returned to full commercial operations with assistance to the islands being given through percentage reductions in commercial rates. The length of this period would be determined by experience of actual trading conditions. But the Secretary of State expects it to be short.
The scheme proposed comprises the following elements. First, a contribution to the company's projected deficit on Highlands and Islands trading. In the first year of operation the Secretary of State proposes to pay a maximum of £100,000 in the current year towards the company's deficit. So there will be an incentive for the company to reduce costs and increase its efficiency. The Secretary of State's contribution will be based on an


estimate of the deficit agreed between the Scottish Office and the company. If the actual deficit is less than the contribution made a clawback arrangement will operate.
The scheme also includes a reduction, set for the moment at 12½ per cent., in Glenlight's commercial rates. Like the East Coast scheme, this reduction will be identified separately on the company's invoices to its customers as direct Government assistance to the user. Excluded from this proposal will be Glenlight's trading outwith the Highlands and islands and some other specific operations, for example, those involving charter hire of Glenlight vessels by the United States navy.
The contribution towards Glenlight's deficit on Highlands and islands trading will be reduced in real terms with assistance being transferred to increased percentage reductions on freight rates. The transition from deficit funding to fully commercial operation will be monitored and individual stages will be agreed between the Secretary of State and the company so that there will be no undesirable suddenness in increases in freight rates to the islands communities—who will, in any event, be cushioned by the percentage rebate scheme.
The draft undertaking also include the possibility for making capital grants to Glenlight to encourage the development of efficient operation by assisting with the company's already well advanced programme of modernisation. I would not, however, expect this device to be used except in exceptional circumstances.
In this case, if the undertaking to Glenlight is approved, the Secretary of State proposes to spend around £110,000 in the current financial year, made up of a £100,000 contribution to the company's 1980 deficit and some £10,000 in repayments for percentage reductions in freight rates. This in a full financial year is equivalent to around £250,000. The rebate scheme will come into effect on 1 February. Its cost will be met out of existing public expenditure provision. I am aware that there is widespread support in the Highlands and islands for these measures which will assist the islands, and I commend the draft undertakings to the House for its approval.

Mr. Donald Dewar: It will be no surprise to the House that the Opposition give a welcome to these undertakings and proposals, although there are a number of individual points—some of which have been partly clarified by the Minister—on which a little more information would be of assistance to hon. Members and to the public at large.
The basic scheme which is being introduced for all these operators is a fairly familiar formula, because it is the one that was used in the earlier undertakings with P and O Ferries. It is, of course, a system whereby there is a percentage reduction in the fare tariffs rather than a direct loss subsidy. We gather from what the Minister has said that it is an amalgam of these two systems in regard to Glenlight, but I take the point that the Government's intention is that the emphasis should be on subsidy for the user rather than a method of trying to meet a trading loss of the individual and specific company.
I shall want to read—as I am sure other hon. Members will—the details which the Minister announced. He gave us a good deal of information about the specific schemes in each particular case. May I ask him about the extra costs

which will fall, as he gave us individual fragmented figures and I have not an entirely aggregate figure in my mind at the moment?
In the year 1980–81, as I understand it, the Government intended to spend about £1·6 million in subsidies of this kind. Presumably that covered the original undertakings which have gone through the House in the past. I have had the advantage of seeing the correspondence concerning Glenlight that was given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) by the Scottish Office. A letter of 28 November indicates—this also became clear from the Minister's remarks—that Glenlight will be getting assistance in 1980–81.
Will the Minister make clear whether the £110,000,—which I gather is the total figure to which he is referring for that year—is in that £1·6 million, and, if it is, whether the money that is to be spent in support for Shetland Line and Hay and Co. (Lerwick) Ltd. will also be in that £1·6 million? The Minister was talking respectively of £150,000 and £250,000 in a full financial year, and presumably certainly in the year there will be a very considerable impact. I wonder when he will be in a position—or whether he is now in a position—to tell us what that figure of £1·6 million will become, not only in terms of these particular undertakings but also the global total which involves the P and O subsidies as well.
There is scepticism in certain quarters about the tariff reductions. It has been put to me that the theory about them is all very well. It is that a commercial rate is set that will cover the companies' operating costs and that that will give a reasonable profit margin. Independently of that, however, there is to be a reduction of fares because of the subsidy. Would the companies require the permission of the Secretary of State to increase fares? The undertakings are clear that if there is a variation in the tariff reductions—the 12½ per cent. and the 42½ per cent., to take the figures for P and O Ferries, which will apply in the case of the Shetlands—the written permission of the Secretary of State would be required. If those percentages were not being varied and the shipping companies wanted to put the fares up substantially, would they need the imprimatur of the authorities, or could they do it entirely off their own bat?
In November 1980 P and O Ferries greatly increased their fares. That created a great deal of indignation among the consumers in Orkney and Shetland, if the press reports are correct. We all approve of the subsidies benefiting the consumer. Many of us are worried, however, that if there were a mark-down of 12½ per cent. or 42½ per cent., there would be a compensating rise in fares and the consumer would be left without benefit while the operators enjoyed a considerable hidden benefit. Will the Under-Secretary say a word about monitoring and indicate what provision there is for alteration of the fares structure, as distinct from the subsidy formula?
Will the hon. Gentleman say a word or two further about paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Glenlight undertaking? I appreciate his point that these are capital grants to help with the modernisation of the fleet. But to what extent does he expect calls to be made upon them? There have been detailed discussions with Glenlight, so presumably thre is some indication of the company's precise capital requirements. There is speculation in some quarters about what they will be used for and whether they will enable Glenlight, for good or for ill, to move to a wider sphere


of operation by investing in rather more ambitious craft. We must have a good deal more information about the likely costs and intentions here.
Although we welcome the undertakings as a useful attempt to contribute to the economy of the islands by tackling the considerable transport costs, at another level they are very much a matter of making and mending. To use a phase of my elders and betters on these Benches, it seems to be a case of hudging and fudging. We have been waiting for a long time for an announcement from the Minister on the general future shape of Highlands ferries and shipping services.
I might outstay my welcome if I tried to rehearse the history of the road equivalent tariff. It was a manifesto commitment by the Tories. We are entitled to know whether these specific undertakings for specific shipping operators are an interim short-term measure before a decision is reached on the road equivalent tariff, or whether the patching is to continue for a considerable time and the road equivalent tariff is to be pushed out of sight and forgotten because it is an embarrassment to the Government. We want a general indication so that we can consider these undertakings in that context.
Labour Members are obviously sympathetic to the concept of the road equivalent tariff. However, we are conscious that it is a rigid mathematical formula. If one takes the average vehicle's operating costs, multiply it by the length of the vehicle and by the length of the crossing, and if one puts in an arbitrary divine control element, one gets a rigid formula. If that is applied to the longer crossings to the more remote islands, it may have some very unfortunate consequences.
We should want to consider carefully the results of a road equivalent tariff if it is introduced simpliciter. Nevertheless, it was a manifesto pledge. In addition, a number of useful variants, such as freight only, might be introduced. The Minister owes us some explanation of the Government's thinking. There is a newspaper report of 17 September on the Minister's press conference on the road equivalent tariff and on the many submissions made in reply to the consultative paper. He came out with a typical formula. He said that:
'the Government remained committed to a policy of 'moving towards the principle of RET'.
That is not exactly a ringing declaration of principle. There is just a suspicion of qualification about the phrase about moving towards the principle. I do not know whether we shall ever get past the principle to the reality. Perhaps we shall spend many years moving towards it without reaching it. However, that suspicion is compounded by the fact that these undertakings—which we assume will have a lengthy life—are being debated so late at night.
I need hardly remind the Minister that we were promised an answer on the question of road equivalent tariff a long time ago. The last reference to it was in a parliamentary question in my name that was answered on 19 December. As such answers tend to do, it referred me to an answer printed on 27 November 1980 to a question asked by a Liberal Member, the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). The Under-Secretary said that there was
a wide range of views …"—
that is not surprising.
These are being considered and my right hon. Friend hopes to announce his conclusions early in 1981."—[Official Report, 26 November 1980; Vol. 994, c. 122.]

It is a stroke of luck that it is now early 1981. Who knows? Perhaps the Minister will be able to announce those conclusions, or at least speculate about them, tonight. If not, perhaps he will be able to define "early". We should then be able to look forward to an early, definite date.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say more about the timing of the road equivalent tariff decisions and their effect on these undertakings. I also hope that he will say a word or two about the plan in the consultative document to put routes out to tender. Perhaps he will also mention the other important shipping subsidy, namely, the one given as a loss deficit help to Caledonian MacBrayne. It operates on much the same territory as Glenlight, although not necessarily in competition with it. Last year £5·1 million was involved. There has been great speculation. I understand that Caledonian MacBrayne has advised the Minister that if fares are not to be substantially increased, and if services are not to be cruelly cut, it will need about £7 million. Some preliminary moves have already been made concerning the Clyde cruising programme.
When will we hear what the outturn for the year is as regards Caledonian MacBrayne? That organisation made great efforts to get the relevant figures for the coming year to the Minister by October 1980. January is a critical marketing period. The company is now in a difficult position. It cannot price effectively for the important summer trade.
What plans are there to alter the pattern of the subsidy, and who is likely to receive subsidies on the Caledonian MacBrayne routes as currently held?
The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) was recently quoted in the Glasgow Herald. He referred to the prospect of substantial fare increases or cuts in services by Caledonian MacBrayne. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. He said:
These suggestions are horrifying.
He then went on to say:
If MacBrayne can't compete with private enterprise, it should get out.
I hope that the hon. Member for Argyll's usual intemperate advice will be ignored by the Government in the interests of his constituents. But if the Minister has in mind making changes in that set-up, this is a convenient opportunity for him to tell the House. Of course, the House may not be entirely receptive to his ideas, but it would be glad to know what they are.
We take the road equivalent tariff matter very seriously. I do not want to sound over-zealous about seeing the Government sticking to their manifesto commitments, because there are many that I do not wish them to stick to, but this is rather more benign and desirable than most of its colleagues in the manifesto. We are worried about what is happening in this respect. Judging by the correspondence with Glenlight, there was a great deal of travail before the present undertakings saw the light of day.
The Minister, in his letter of 28 November, with charming simplicity, said that the problem lay in ensuring that the money was available. I recognise for all Ministers the problem of ensuring that the money is available. Will the money be available for all these grandiose schemes, such as the road equivalent tariff, with which the Minister has titillated our palates during the months since the general election and on which he tried to obtain votes at the election?
Transport costs for the islands will be significant. The last figures that I saw on the Aberdeen-Lerwick line for a fully laden lorry were getting on for £400 and for an unladen lorry £175. These are substantial charges. If anything can be done about this matter, by the introduction of road equivalent tariff or any other move, the House would be grateful to know of it and be anxious to support it.
I noticed with pleasure the obligatory reference to Para Handy that some intelligent civil servant wrote for the Minister. It was nice that that cliché should not be forgotten when we talked about the puffer trade. It is a romantic subject, but we should remember that it is an important part of the communications links with the islands and that it has to be run as a business.
I hope that this undertaking will allow these valuable services to continue. I hope also that we shall hear something about the long term and will get some of the answers to the longer statutory questions in connection with road equivalent tariff that we are entitled to ask.

Mr. John MacKay: In following in debate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who I think welcomed these undertakings, I should make it clear that I welcome them.
I want to speak specifically about Glenlight Shipping Ltd. because it serves not only the islands but the remote mainland parts of my constituency by carrying bulk cargo which is not carried on the roll-on/roll-off ferry system—for example, coal, fertiliser, limestone and roadstone.
Obligatory references have been made to Para Handy and the "Vital Spark", but we have come a long way since then. I do not think that the new vessels—which are called mini self-discharge bulkers—can be half as romantic as puffers or Para Handy. However, they carry out the important role that was fulfilled by the puffers before them. They carry coal to islands such as Iona. The romantic aspect still exists, because once a year they ground themselves on the sand and the coal is unloaded. That is important. If it were not for that, it would be extremely difficult to carry coal to Iona or to many other islands.
One place that has been in severe trouble this winter on a remote mainland part of Argyll, the Ardnamurchan peninsula, has been Strontian, after which the element strontium was named. Unfortunately, it does not have its own private nuclear power plant, despite strontium, and it needs coal. Earlier in the winter there was a danger that the company would not be able to deliver coal there. I hope that that service will be resumed as a result of this undertaking.
The hon. Member for Garscadden rightly mentioned that bulk carriers fitted into a jigsaw which also contained the roll-on/roll-off carriers, but that they had different purposes and it is not easy to see the Highlands and islands existing without both. That is the important part of this undertaking. Up to now, Governments have subsidised the ferry services. Under the present Government, for the first time a Government have recognised the importance of the bulk carrier. They should recognise it a little further and look at more consequences of it than just that.
I do not want to go very far down that road, but I think that the sea is an important highway which perhaps we have neglected, and not only the sea but also the waters of our inland waterways. Perhaps with the cost of fuel and the rising price of oil in the future it will be more important to carry more by sea, where it can be done economically as long as one is not in a great hurry. For many of the items I have mentioned, such as coal, if it takes a day or two to deliver them, so be it. Perishables, of course, are in a different category.
I had not intended to mention one matter, but if the two speakers on the Front Benches can mention matters which are not strictly within the headings on the Order Paper perhaps I can do so, too. On the present grant negotiations with Caledonian MacBrayne, the position, as the Minister knows, is that some time has elapsed since Caledonian MacBrayne went to Seaham. I understand the Government's great difficulty. Once again, Caledonian MacBrayne is asking for a very considerable extra sum of money. Last year the Government were very generous to the company—certainly in the light of the much smaller grants given in the five preceding years by the Labour Government. But the company has come again.
The problem is that as we run into January, as the hon. Member for Garscadden says, Caledonian MacBrayne has still not issued a definitive timetable. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you wish to go to my constituency on holiday, which would be an extremely wise thing for you to do, it is at present rather difficult to work out what your travel arrangements might be as the timetable has not been issued. Indeed, for one of my islands we still do not know on which three days of the week the boat will sail. As you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this makes life very difficult for the people who are trying to encourage tourism on the West Coast. I urge the Minister to try to reach a final decision and a final agreement between the Scottish Office and Caledonian MacBrayne as quickly as possible.
I also mention the consultative document on road equivalent tariff and all the documents which have come in as a response. I am not surprised that this has taken some months, given the nature of the responses and their variation. I have not read any two which absolutely agree with each other, which must make the task of putting them all together very difficult.
Much of this has arisen from what is claimed to be done in Norway but I have read a great deal of conflicting evidence over the last few months that perhaps Norway does not do exactly what some think it does. My hon. Friend the Minister visited Norway last autumn. I wonder whether he will consider issuing some kind of paper to tell us what he found in Norway. That would be very useful. There have been conflicting letters and conflicting articles which suggest that Norway does not run an RET system. The system that it nearly runs, if it nearly runs one, is run only on a very limited number of routes—not at all like the important long sea routes that we have to some of the islands off the West Coast. Therefore, the Norwegian system is not really applicable to, say, the route to Tiree and Colonsay, or to Islay, or the longer routes out to the constituency of the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart).
In the light of all the conflicting reports about Norway, such a paper would be useful—unless the Minister organises a trip for all of us who are interested to look at matters on the ground in Norway. [HON. MEMBERS:


"Hear, hear."] There might then be a sudden burst of interest in transport to the Western Isles. That appears to be so tonight. I see two hon. Members from the central belt of Scotland who seem to wish to participate in the debate. Perhaps they have heard that there is to be a trip to Norway to look at the transport system. Will my hon. Friend explain what he found in Norway and how it applies to our situation?
I rashly said to colleagues that the debate would not last for an hour and a half. They will take a dim view if I prolong it. However, I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their help. The cargo boats play an important part in the interlocking transport system to the islands. It has been an anomaly that the roll-on/roll-off ferries and the other ferries of Caledonian MacBrayne have received a subsidy, whereas the others, which are also doing an important job, have received no help.
The help is yet another example of the carrying out of our manifesto commitments. We welcome the hon. Member for Garscadden to the Manifesto group. I hope that all hon. Members, regardless of party, will welcome the Government's decision. It is important for those who live in far-away places, with historically difficult transport problems. I speak for all my constituents on the islands and the mainland served by these modern successors of the "Vital Spark" when I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their help.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I welcome the draft undertakings.
Oppositions look favourably on road equivalent tariffs, as the hon. Member for Glasgow., Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) made clear. When in Opposition, the Government made a commitment to introduce the tariff. However, two years ago in the Scottish Grand Committee I got short shrift from the right hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) when I pressed for the tariff. I ask the present Minister to stand and deliver on his election commitment. I hope that not a great deal of time will elapse before the Government present a scheme for road equivalent tariffs. It need not be a rigid formula. Variations other than those concerning size of vehicles and length of route can be introduced.
I do not know what scheme operates in Norway. However, I visited Norway three of four years ago with colleagues from the House. We learnt of some islands well inside the Arctic Circle. The Government in Oslo believed that the people in the far north of the country should have the same chance of economic existence as the people in the far south. I do not know the details, but there were frequent shipments from the far north of the Norwegian mainland to the islands.
I wish to deal with the undertaking with Glenlight Shipping Ltd., which is extremely welcome in my constituency where the company operates. Without Government assistance, the company would have to enforce unbearably high rates or possibly withdraw the service, which would be drastic. The company provides a valuable service, delivering bulk cargoes to out-of-the-way places. If it was withdrawn, the cargoes could not come in by lorry or any other method. It is a vital link for us.
I raised one omission in the undertaking over a year ago with the Scottish Office—the question of assistance to the company in Scalpay in the Isle of Harris that carries bottled

gas throughout the islands. That is a commodity that cannot be carried on the normal roll-on/roll-off ferries. I do not expect a reply to that tonight, but I hope that the Under-Secretary will take it up with his right hon. Friend.
I congratulate the Government on this contribution to meeting their commitment to assist the island authorities. It will be greatly welcomed by, and of great assistance in, my constituency.

Mr. J. Grimond: We are discussing the motions at a time when my constituency is in considerable difficulties over shipping. We are suffering the effects of strikes, bad weather and breakdowns. This emphasises the total dependence of islands upon the shipping services, and, of course, the air services.
Apart from such difficulties, year in and year out we face extremely high freight charges and fares, and constant increases in them. The Minister said that they were thought—I think that that was his word—to be a severe handicap to the island. I can assure him that it is not only thought; they are, on all the evidence, a very severe handicap.
I was glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman's party is pledged at least to maintain the islands in being, and that these measures are part of the redemption of that pledge. I was also glad to hear that this assistance will be based on the 42½ per cent. for outgoing cargoes and 12½ per cent. for ingoing cargoes which is already paid to the ferry services.
I was glad, too, that we shall soon hear what the new scheme of assistance to the ferry services may be. This is not the time to debate the road equivalent tariff in detail, but I have serious doubts about it, though I do not want to look a gift horse in the mouth. It may turn out all right, but at present it seems to be immensely complicated and illogical in certain parts of its proposals, and its results appear to be unpredictable—so much so that I understand that some islands will hardly gain from it at all.
Therefore, the Government need to look very carefully at the road equivalent tariff, if that is to be their instrument for assisting us. Anyway, I am glad to hear that assistance for the ferry services is promised, and promised soon.
The undertakings provide valuable assistance to the shipping services in my constituency, particularly in Shetland. I have pressed for that assistance for some time, and have pointed out the unfairness of depriving other companies of any assistance while P and O receives it. At one time it seemed possible that financial stringency might lead to such assistance being postponed. I congratulate the Minister on having overcome that difficulty and producing the undertakings now. They seem to me to have several advantages.
First, it is clear that the reduction in freight charges which will result will go to the users of the services. I have always stressed that that is an essential part of any subsidy scheme.
Secondly, the undertakings that go to the heart of the matter—straightforward percentage assistance over freights. I believe that that is a simpler and more effective way of subsidising transport than the road equivalent tariff.
Thirdly, the undertakings will assist bulk shipping as well as other types of shipment. To take one example, they


will be of great assistance to Messrs Sandison in Unst, the most northerly island of the British Isles, in their export of talc.
There is a widespread belief that oil has proved an unmitigated blessing to Shetland and Orkney, but that is not so. First, freight charges have risen just as steadily in spite of oil. Secondly, the traditional industries have been put in considerable difficulty owing to oil, through loss of labour and the increase of some costs. It is essential that firms such as Sandison should keep in business and prosper, so that they will exist when the oil boom is over.
I was a little puzzled by some differences between the undertakings, but the Minister has gone some way to explain them. For instance, in the case of Glenlight Shipping the grants are said to be for the support of such services as well as to enable tariff reductions to be made. In the case of Hay and Co. and the Shetland Line, there is no mention of support of the services. I now see that, as I understand it, that is because Glenlight is trading at a loss, and therefore the grant is partly to keep the service going.
There is then the discrepancy that Glenlight is entitled to capital grants, while the other two lines are not. I do not begrudge it its good luck, but has the Minister had any discussions with Hay and Co. or with the Shetland Line about the replacement of their vessels? This is a matter of grave difficulty for small shipping companies. I hope that a similar concession may be made to them if it proves necessary.
In paragraph 4 of the undertaking affecting Hay and Co. there is a provision that the company can benefit in a manner which I do not think occurs in the other two measures. I suppose this is because Hay and Co., as a large trader as well as shipowner, is entitled to get the benefit on the goods in which it trades.

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. There is the requirement that Hay and Co. has to pass on to the consumer any reduction in the selling price of its produce in its own shops when it has had the benefit of the importing reductions.

Mr. Grimond: I am sure that Hay and Co. will be only too happy to do what the Minister has described. I am not certain how the process will be monitored. All too often prices go up and obscure whatever subsidy may be given. I am grateful, however, that the Minister has confirmed the point.
I understand that the Shetland Line is to get about £20,000 in the remainder of the present financial year and about £250,000 in a full year while Hay and Co. is expected to get about £15,000 in the remainder of the financial year and about £150,000 in a full year. I assume that the measures come into force at once and payments will be made on all trading that comes within them from this moment onwards.

Mr. Rifkind: They are due to come into force on 1 February.

Mr. Grimond: I assume also that the figures are at current prices. Although the measures, I imagine, will be kept in operation for some time, the figures can no doubt be adjusted according to what happens to inflation and to Shetland trade.
The proposal is a substantial help, although we still look for further help on the question of freights and fares generally. Like other hon. Members, I am grateful to the Government for introducing the undertakings. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the percentages and the totals involved. There has been considerable interest in my constituency about the way in which the figures and percentages would work out. They will help lines that are essential in dealing with bulk shipments that cannot be handled in any other way.

Mr. Norman Hogg: It was inevitable, I suppose, that the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) should question why West Central Scotland Members have been seeking to contribute to the debate. The answer is simple. There is an interest in these matters that goes beyond the islands. Finance is involved that will be met by the taxpayers as a whole. The islands are immensely important to the economy of Scotland and the United Kingdom. When one considers the importance of Shetland and the Western Isles, it is not unreasonable that other hon. Members should make a contribution. I hope that we will receive answers to some of the questions posed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
The total cost is a matter of some interest. It is known that Norway subsidises its ferries to the extent of £30 million. I should like to know what the arrangements in Norway mean in practical terms for the industry.
The undertakings have an importance for the island communities, not all of which are as prosperous as Shetland or anything like it. Some are depressed and have a long history of decline. At the same time, they have demonstrated that they are willing to fight for their survival. Many hon. Members would strongly support that aim. Even if the undertakings were to help only minimally, they would command my support. They have real importance for the constituency of the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart).
When I served as a member of the transport users consultative committee for Scotland, which I suppose is another justification for contributing to the debate, I heard a good deal of the complaints that users had of the services. None the less, what kept coming through all the time was the importance that these services had to the various communities. Many of the complaints were about frequency and the failure sometimes of the service to make adequate provision. I am sure that the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Myles), who served with me on the committee, will recall many of the arguments that we had with the operators, who seemed determined to support the image of timelessness that is often associated with the Western Isles. It is that image that astonished me when I was reading a newspaper—I am sure that you are never without a copy, Mr. Deputy Speaker—entitled the Stornoway And West Coast Advertiser. It was the edition for the week ending 27 December, which carried the legend:
May I wish all my constituents from Muckle Flugga to the Mull of Kintyre a very happy Christmas, and may 1980 take all the people of Scotland a step nearer prosperity and peace.
That edition appeared two days after Christmas and, of course, it was the wrong year. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Western Isles will ensure that Mrs. Winifred Ewing is acquainted with what year it is.
The debate affords an opportunity to say something about the road equivalent tariff. We urgently require the Government's observations on the questions that have been put tonight. A statement was promised in 1981, and it would be helpful if we were to have that statement tonight. That is probably asking too much. However, I hope that we shall get an answer very soon. The interest in RET is considerable, not least in the transport industry in Scotland. The Scottish transport group produced a paper containing comments on sea transport to the Scottish islands. That has been with the Government for some time and it would be useful to know exactly what the Government feel about those observations. I thought that they were by far and away the best informed and the best argued of the comments made upon the consultative paper.

Mr. John MacKay: It might help the House if the hon. Gentleman were to agree with me that basically the Scottish transport group's paper is not in favour of RET and proposes an alternative method of helping the islands.

Mr. Hogg: It contained a number of arguments. The merits of the paper lie in its contribution to the debate of RET. That is why we should have the Government's observations as soon as possible.
The Highlands and Islands Development Board has been talking about RET since 1974. The Scottish transport users consultative committee has expressed its views. Again, it would be helpful to have the Minister's comments at the appropriate time. I appreciate that this is not the occasion for him to comment. However, I hope that we shall have very soon the Government's response to bodies that are important to the islands that are served by the ferries. I hope that we shall be given the answers that we are seeking.

Mr. John Maxton: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg), I, too, should satisfy the curiosity of the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) as to why we are speaking on this issue.
There were two reasons why I decided to take part in the debate. First, I am glad of the opportunity to welcome State intervention in the economy, from whichever part of the House it comes. The undertaking is about State intervention to help the economy. I was surprised and pleased to hear the Minister and the hon. Member for Argyll give such a warm welcome to the subsidies. If we were to suggest, as we have on many occasions, that other elements of public transportation should be subsidised more heavily, we know what noises we would hear from the Conservative Benches.
I welcome the undertaking because public transport should receive Government support. However, it should be not only for the island communities in Scotland but for public transport across the whole sector. If we look at Norway and other European countries to see what they do in terms of State subsidies in their public transport systems, we will find that the subsidies apply not only to island ferries but to a much wider sector. There is also a much higher level of subsidy than in Britain.
Secondly, the islands of Scotland are not only an important part of the economy of Scotland but an important part of the leisure of Scotland. For a long time, Glasgow and the West of Scotland have considered the

islands as places where many people, in my constituency and elsewhere, take their holidays. I admit quite proudly that I regularly holiday on one of the islands. During my time there I discuss with the islanders the island economy and the effects of the ferry charges on the islands. When the consultative document was published, I sent it to friends on the island of Arran. I asked for their comments. They kindly sent them to me, and I forwarded them to the Minister. Therefore, I have some stake in this discussion.
We welcome the undertakings. We welcome any subsidy that will improve the life and prosperity of those who live in the island communities. It is a matter not only of the more remote islands represented by the right hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), but of the inner islands of the Clyde and elsewhere. They are affected by subsidies. They are as dependent on shipping as the outer islands. In some respects they are more dependent. The islands of Arran, Bute and Cumbrae do not have an airstrip. They have no air transportation, as do some of the more remote islands. If there is a shipping strike or some breakdown in service their connection is cut. Any form of subsidy to those islands is extremely important.
The ferry charges make a profound difference to the way in which the islanders live. As the islands become increasingly dependent upon tourism, the more important become the ferries. Tourism is the major source of income for many of the islands. I see that the right hon. Member for Western Isles is shaking his head. It is true that for the inner islands tourism is now the basic industry. At a time of a strong pound and increasing inflation foreigners are not attracted to Britain. It is, however, attractive to Britons to holiday abroad if they have any money to do so. Therefore, it is difficult for the islands to attract tourists if the ferry charges for a car and family, which are high, are added to the cost of the holiday. For example, some £40 has to be found even before paying hotel bills. That makes a difference.
That is one reason why I looked with considerable interest at the RET proposals. I accept that there are some reservations about them, but in most cases taking a car by ferry is cheaper, with the exception of one or two of the further islands. I accept the point which has been made on that, but the fact is that for freight and commercial vehicles in every instance it is cheaper, and for passengers in every instance it is cheaper. For nearly all the inner islands the costs are lower, and I suggest that it is with these islands that there is a greater movement of cars back and forth on the roll-on/roll-off ferries than there is perhaps with the further reaches of the Scottish islands.
Therefore, although I have some reservations, I should welcome the Minister's observations on RET, and I should welcome some attempt—if the Government will not introduce RET—at least to bring in a scheme which would lower the fares on the ferries and other shipping to the sort of level proposed in the appendices to their consultative paper. That is the only way by which these island economies will survive. If they do not have fairly massive subsidies, they will not be viable.
I take the island of Arran as an example. Until the mid-1960s it looked as though an island of that size and as close as that to the mainland could become almost totally depopulated. An upsurge of tourism in the mid-1960s through to about 1974–75 stabilised the population and made it look as though the island was again becoming


viable, but the decline in tourism since then has again put the island in jeopardy. I am sure that the same must be true of other Scottish islands as well.
Therefore, any way by which the Minister can introduce yet greater subsidies for transport to the islands will be welcomed not just by Members representing island constituencies but, I believe by all Scottish Members of Parliament as a way of ensuring that the way of life of whole communities and the communities themselves will survive in the future.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank hon. Members on both sides who have given, I think, an unqualified welcome to these undertakings.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked a number of questions, to which I shall now briefly respond. First, he asked whether the sums to be paid to these companies in the current year come under the £1.6 million total to which he referred. I can tell him that the £1.6 million is the figure which P and O is receiving for the current year, and the sums to which I have referred tonight, which in the current year will add up to about £150,000, will be extra sums made available out of existing resources within the Scottish Office but in addition to the sum of £1.6 million.
Second, the hon. Gentleman asked about the effect of any proposed increase in fares which individual companies might wish to introduce, and he wanted to know whether that would need the consent of the Secretary of State. Under the terms of the undertaking, any intention to increase fares has to be notified to the Secretary of State so that he may say whether he wishes to give his consent. In general, it would not be our desire to interfere with what are essentially the internal commercial decisions of an individual company, but, clearly, that is information which would have to be passed to the Secretary of State and would be considered on its merits at the time.

Mr. Dewar: I am grateful for that clarification because, from a reading of the undertakings, I thought that it might be only the discount, if the Minister follows me, that needed the permission—in other words, a variation from the 12½ per cent. and the 42½ per cent. Is the Minister saying that if there is an actual increase in the figure on which that discount is calculated it is at least open to the Scottish Office to refuse to allow that increase if it wants to?

Mr. Rifkind: At this stage, the Secretary of State has indicated the sums which will be paid. Clearly, if an individual company were to change its tariff, that would affect the percentage which the subsidy reflected. In other words, at the moment it is intended that the subsidy should be 12½ per cent. in one direction and 42½ per cent. in the other. We have not given, as it were, an open-ended commitment on that. We have said that that is the percentage which the present sums represent, which the Government believe to be appropriate.
If an individual company could unilaterally change the tariff and thereby bring upon the Government an automatic obligation to increase the subsidy, that would be an irresponsible arrangement for any Government to come to. What we have therefore said is that if a company wishes

to increase the tariff it has to receive the consent of the Secretary of State in the terms of the undertakings which provide a subsidy towards the tariff concerned,

Mr. Dewar: May I clarify that? Is the Minister saying that the undertaking is not to be 12½ per cent. and 42½ per cent. but certain figures which constitute that percentage of the present tariffs, and if there is a wish to increase the tariffs so that the value or cost of those percentages increases that would not be possible without the Minister's specific permission?

Mr. Rifkind: The Government would hope to maintain these percentges, and if the increase that the companies seek is reasonable in all the circumstances the Government might feel able to increase the subsidy proportionately. What we cannot do is to give an open-ended commitment, to be used at the sole discretion of the individual company, which brings in its wake an increased financial commitment by the Government. I see that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that.
Both the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked about the capital grants that might be available, in particular to Glenlight Shipping Ltd. The position is that the company has been involved in capital works in its services, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took the view that it would be helpful to include in the undertakings at least a power for him to give assistance in this direction in case any future technological innovations would sufficiently benefit the island communities to justify the consideraton of a Government grant. At the moment we have no indication of any such application, and we think that it is not highly probable that any such grant will be provided, but it is thought right to have some discretion in this matter.
The hon. Members for Garscadden and for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg) appeared to rebuke the Government for the delay in making a firm announcement on the question of further support for the islands and on the future of RET. I do not think that it is up to Labour Members to rebuke the Government on any question of delay in providing further support for the island communities. During the period of the Labour Government the amount of financial support to the ferries in Scotland was reduced in real terms. One should compare that with what this Government have done at a time of declining public expenditure. We have increased the subsidy to Caledonian MacBrayne from £3½ million to £5 million, produced a new subsidy for P and O services, and arranged the bulk cargo support in the undertakings. I think that hon. Gentlemen will therefore appreciate that this Government have done more in a year and a half to help the island communities than the previous Administration did during their term of office.
On the subject of RET, I deny any question of undue delay on the part of the Government. We issued a consultative document last summer and we said at the time, and we have said ever since, that at the beginning of this year we would announce our conclusions on the consultations that we would have. While the hon. Member for Garscadden is undoubtedly correct in saying that today constitutes the beginning of this year, so will next week and perhaps even next month. The "beginning of this year" is the phrase that the Government used, and we did not


indicate any specific date. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that that commitment will be kept in the terms that it was given.
The hon. Member for Garscadden and my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) drew attention to the fact that Caledonian MacBrayne and the Scottish transport group are anxious to know as soon as possible what their subsidy will be for the coming year, and I understand the reasons for that. We expect to indicate in the very near future what that sum will be. That is likely to be at an earlier date than has been possible in previous years, when either late January or early February was the time given to the Scottish transport group, so compared with previous years an early decision is highly probable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and one or two others, in referring to the principle of RET, asked about the Norwegian system. They will appreciate that tonight is not the occasion on which to go into the details of the rate equivalent tariff as it is seen by other countries, but my hon. Mend is correct in saying that the view that there is some sort of rigid system of RET—or indeed a scientific system—in Norway is wrong. The system used there is of a much more rough and ready nature.
I shall consider whether the conclusions that we drew from our recent visit to Norway should be made available for more public discussion, but one of the most lasting impressions that I received when I went to Norway was when I was informed by the Norwegian Minister responsible for these matters that, as half of the Members of the Storting had ferries in their constituencies, it would appear that a debate of the kind that we are having here this evening would result in contributions from about half of the Norwegian Parliament if they were all to speak to their constituency interests. Therefore, the matter is on a different scale in Norway from that in the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), whom I thank for his welcome to these undertakings, mentioned the problem of the transportation of bottled gas in his constituency. I undertake that the Department will consider the right hon. Gentleman's point and see what is possible in this regard.
I thank those right hon. and hon. Members who have welcomed these proposals. I am glad that they recognise, as do the Government, that it is essential that Scotland's island communities be given the fullest opportunity to develop their economic and social structure. I assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that this Government have never been against the concept of helping the island communities. The concept of an indiscriminate subsidy may appeal to the hon. Gentleman, although that is what the present Government and the Conservative Party have always rejected. However, given that these were commitments that were contained in our election manifesto some time ago, he will appreciate that in the Government's view Scotland's island communities deserve the fullest support and that the Government, as we have shown already, intend to continue with a high degree of support in order to preserve these communities.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and Hay and Company (Lerwick) Limited and John Fleming and Company Limited, which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.

Resolved,

That the draft Undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and Glenlight Shipping Limited and Clyde Shipping Company Limited, which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved,
That the draft Undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and Shetland Line Limited and Melton Securities Limited, which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c:

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

AGRICULTURE

That the Sheep Variable Premium (Protection of Payments) (No. 2) Order 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 1811), a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Benzidine-based Dyes

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Miss Joan Lestor: Nobody would want to cause unnecessary alarm by making allegations about possible causes of cancer without some very strong evidence to support such allegations. However, when certain evidence is available and when certain action has been taken by other countries in relation to substances in common use in this country in certain industries, particularly in the cotton and leather industries, it is the responsibility of Members of Parliament to ensure that such matters be brought before the House and that the Minister involved be asked to comment on some of the findings.
On 14 November last the American Consumer Product Safety Committee announced that it had decided to ban the use of three potentially dangerous dyes alleged to have cancer connections, particularly in relation to blood cancer. These dyes are used in this country, in America, in Japan and in many other countries in powder and liquid form and are commonly used in the two industries I have mentioned.
The evidence quoted by the United States Consumer Product Safety Committee is to the effect that the absorption of these dye substances into the human system—by inhaling the dye product itself, by contamination through the skin by placing the hands in the dyes, or in other instances by accident, as happened in Japan in the case of the Japanese kimono painters putting a paint brush between their lips in order to get a finer point—has a strong causal relationship with blood cancer.
So alarmed is the American Consumer Product Safety Committee by these findings that it has decided to impose a ban on these substances and to seek to find substitutes that do not involve such hazards. Naturally, that has alarmed the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers, which has been anxious about the mounting allegations which have commanded the attention of the Cancer Prevention Society. Under the auspices of Gordon Wilson, an interesting pamphlet has been written dealing with the subject and particularly with the risk of bladder cancer from the use of these dyes.
Britain has not taken the action proposed by America in relation to the banning of the dyes and the search for substitutes. That is alarming since America is not at the forefront in such action until there is considerable evidence of the possible dangers. In America and other parts of the world surveys have been made of workers constantly involved with the use of such dyes. A survey of 200 bladder cancer patients in Japan demonstrated that many were involved in kimono painting and dyeing. The dyes were taken in through the lips.
Other evidence substantiates the fear that there might be a strong connection between the use of the dyes and the increase in bladder cancer. Other work has been done. Experiments and tests have been carried out among people in the wool industry in Britain. Studies have been made by Raymond Cartwright and others in Leeds and they came to different conclusions. However, the dyes are not as common in the wool industry as in the leather and cotton industries. We should conduct a full examination in those industries. Until we know for sure whether there is a connection between bladder cancer and benzidine-based dyes, there should be a ban on them.

Mr. Bob Cryer: In spite of the evidence, the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers, which is concentrated in the wool and textile industry, has called for evidence on the dyes without much response from Government bodies. It is concerned about the possible cancer-causing properties of the dyes.

Miss Lestor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a constituency interest. The TUC has been involved with the Government and the Health and Safety Commission in trying to get action. The conclusion is that there is no doubt that there should be, and is, anxiety about the possibility of a relationship between the dyes and bladder cancer. In spite of that evidence, there is no recommendation that the dyes should be banned.
That is not good enough. I do not want to cause alarm among the thousands of people involved in the industry. However, it is not good enough, when America is taking action and other countries are expressing anxiety, for Britain to say that there is some evidence of a connection between bladder cancer and the use of benzidine-based dyes, but that until there is more evidence and proof is conclusive it will take no further action and allow the dyes to be used.
If we have any slight indication that the use of certain drugs and substances in dyes is likely to be a cancer or any other risk, unless we can produce enough safeguards to avoid it, such substances should be withdrawn until the evidence is either conclusive or can be totally and utterly repudiated.
I therefore put to the Minister, on behalf of the thousands involved, on behalf of the Cancer Research Society, the union concerned, and many other people, that unless some action similar to that taken in America is taken, the Minister must either say that America has drawn the wrong conclusions or he must justify why in this country we are seemingly still allowing these risks to be taken.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): I thank the hon. Member for Eton

and Slough (Miss Lestor) for choosing this subject for debate. She will be aware that, not only here but in many other cases involving chemicals, difficult decisions have to be made as to what precautions are appropriate, and such decisions have often to be based on incomplete and sometimes conflicting data. The Government believe that it is important that these matters should receive the fullest consideration. There is no justification whatever for confining the debate to experts, and those involved in working with potential hazards should also be involved in the decision making process.
The hon. Member has referred in particular to the publication in this country of "Cancer at Work" by the Cancer Prevention Society, which I have read. While we welcome this valuable contribution to the debate, in that it highlights the problems, it is debatable whether all the proposals put forward in that pamphlet are wholly appropriate in the light of the evidence so far available. Before discussing benzidine-based dyes, perhaps I should say a word—so that we may have the full picture—about benzidine itself. This is the basic chemical from which benzidine-based dyes are made, and it is this chemical that has been known for very many years as a bladder carcinogen.
The manufacture and use of benzidine and substances containing benzidine was prohibited in 1967 by the Carcinogenic Substances Regulations 1967, except where any such substance contained less than 1 per cent. of free benzidine present as a by-product of a chemical reaction. At the same time, importation of benzidine and substances containing benzidine, with the same 1 per cent. exception applying, was prohibited by the Carcinogenic Substances (Prohibition of Importation) Order 1967. The effect of this legislation was to prohibit the manufacture of benzidinebased dyes from benzidine in this country, but the importation and use of the dyes was not prohibited provided they fell within the 1 per cent. exception. In fact, benzidine-based dyes are imported and used in this country but they do not contain anything like 1 per cent. of free benzidine—equivalent to 10,000 parts per million. The free benzidine content of the dyes has been measured and found generally to be less than 30 parts per milliom.
It is known that benzidine-based dyes are made in France, the United State of America and elsewhere. It is estimated that at the present time between 350 and 400 tonnes of these dyes are imported and sold in this country each year, this quantity being the equivalent of 1 per cent. of the total market for dyestuffs in Great Britain. Approximately 50 per cent. of the benzidine-based dyes imported are used in the leather industry, 45 per cent. in the textile industry—mainly in the dying of cotton and man-made fabrics—and the remaining 5 per cent. in the paper industry. Over 60 different benzidine-based dyes are imported, and these are mainly browns and blacks, the latter being used particularly in the leather industry.
The potential risk which might be expected from the use of benzidine-based dyes is that of bladder cancer. It has been accepted for many years now that benzidine itself is carcinogenic, but it is only quite recently that there has been some suspicion about the low-benzidine content dyes now used. The hon. Member was right to point to studies in the United States. After animal studies there it has been suggested that a potential carcinogenic risk may arise from the actual dyes, even if free of benzidine, due to conversion of the dyes in the body to benzidine and its metabolites. The epidemiological evidence relating to the


use of the dyes in Great Britain and the possibility of a raised incidence of bladder cancer in man is considered by the Health and Safety Executive to be inconclusive.
All animals so far tested have been found to metabolise benzidine-based dyes to benzidine and other derivatives. The National Cancer Institute in the United States recently reported that rats which had been fed three benzidinebased dyes, described as being widely used, developed cancer of the liver within a shorter time than would have been expected from the free benzidine content of the dyes alone. The free benzidine content of the dyes used in the experiments is not known, but in the animal feed the content was said to be less than four parts per million.
Evidence from human studies in Russia and Japan has suggested an association between the use of benzidinebased dyes and the subsequent development of pre-cancerous lesions and bladder tumours. Very few details are known about the Russian study, but, as the hon. Member mentioned, that from Japan showed a specific association in the case of kimono painters who habitually formed points on the tips of their brushes by licking, thus inadvertently consuming some of the dyes. In a study of American dye workers carried out by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, benzidine or mono-acetyl benzidine was found in the urine of workers employed at four out of five factories at which tests were made. It was reported that good work practices were observed at the fifth factory, where the tests were negative. Perhaps that means—the report does not make it plain—that in the fifth factory there was more careful handling.
The hon. Member mentioned that in the middle of 1980 the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued a "health hazard alert" on dyes based on benzidine. In the alert the administration concluded that
benzidine-based dyes are potential human carcinogens
and
exposure of workers to the dyes should be reduced to the lowest feasible levels including discontinuation of use of the dyes where possible.
In Great Britain there have been a number of studies involving dye workers, including a retrospective survey of men and women who died from bladder cancer in North Staffordshire between 1965 and 1970; a survey in Leeds between 1959 and 1967; and in 1975 a study on members of the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers in Bradford. None of these has indicated a raised incidence of bladder cancer amongst dye users. The workers involved in the studies had been exposed to a variety of dyestuffs during the period when it is thought that benzidine-based dyes contained a higher proportion of free benzidine than is the case today.
I must make plain, however, that the Health and Safety Executive has not been idle and has taken steps to evaluate the extent of the potential problem and has investigated four possible ways in which a risk may arise from the use of benzidine-based dyes in this country. First, it commissioned work by Leeds university to investigate the residual amounts of free benzidine remaining in benzidinebased dyes used in this country. Forty-four dyes were tested, 41 of which were found to contain less than 10 parts per million of free benzidine, and the remaining three contained between 50 and 70 parts per million.
Secondly, it commissioned work by Leeds university to investigate whether benzidine-based dyes might be

broken down to free benzidine by a reductive chemical reaction in the operation of dye-stripping, that is, the removal of dye from fabric. Tests were carried out to measure any free benzidine in the air above stripping baths or in the bath liquor. No measurable amount of free benzidine was found in the air and a maximum concentration of 33 parts per million was found in the bath liquor.
Thirdly, the executive's employment medical advisory service investigated the possibility of the formation of benzidine and mono-acetyl benzidine following the absorption of benzidine-based dyes into the body. In 1978, tests were carried out for free benzidine or mono-acetyl benzidine in 200 urine samples from workers exposed to benzidine-based dyes. The test method was capable of detecting one part in 1,000 million of free benzidine or mono-acetyl benzidine. However, neither of those compounds was found, and the American findings were not confirmed.
Finally, in September 1980, the Health and Safety Executive commissioned research by the cancer research unit at the University of York. Two of the questions that it is hoped that this research will answer are: first, is there any evidence after application of suitable in vitro tests for biological activity, that benzidine-based dyes constitute a significant carcinogenic hazard; secondly, does any activity stem from the whole molecule or simply from the release in biological systems of the parent aromatic amine? Obviously, these studies should help to determine the potential carcinogenic hazard to man of exposure to benzidine derived dyes.
The evidence concerning the possible health effects of benzidine-based dyes as used in this country is not conclusive one way or the other. Various opinions have been expressed as to whether benzidine-based dyes are potentially human carcinogens. No doubt this controversy will continue for some time. But the most important issue is what are the appropriate steps to be taken now in the light of present evidence to ensure the health of workers exposed to these dyes. The options are prohibition, substitution and/or control.
It is the general policy of the Health and Safety Commission, expressed in its publication "guidance note EH 18—toxic substances: a precautionary policy" that dangerous materials should be substituted by safer ones. Clearly, prohibition is not a step that should be undertaken lightly and without due consideration of all the factors involved—medical, scientific, social and economic. Prohibition is a kind of mandatory substitution in that it forces industry to use alternative materials. In addition, when considering substitution, one must ensure that the substitutes proposed really are safer than the materials they replace. In the case of possible substitutes for benzidinebased dyes the risks to health have not in general been as fully investigated as those from the benzidine-based dyes themselves. Indeed, some reservations on the safety of some of the current possible alternatives have been expressed in the hazard alert to which I have referred. Whilst, therefore, every case for substitution needs to be carefully and individually considered, the Health and Safety Executive has concluded that it would be inappropriate to make specific recommendations at present, and has not done so for this reason. At the same time, it is recognised that more specific guidance on the control of exposure is necessary.
I should stress that it is the general policy of the Health and Safety Executive, expressed in guidance note EH 18, that exposure to all substances, including those for which there is no known limit of effect, should be kept as low as is reasonably practicable, and inspectors have been advising employers accordingly. It is generally accepted that the risk of exposure to dyes is greatest in colour stores where dyes in powder form are handled. A code of practice—"safe handling of dyestuffs in colour stores"—has recently been published by the Health and Safety Executive. The code was prepared by a committee composed of representatives of the dye manufacturers, employers and trade unions in the user industry and the Health and Safety Executive. Although the code is not intended to deal specifically with the handling of benzidine-based dyes, but rather with the handling of dyes in general, it makes recommendations which were applied in practice, greatly reduced the exposure of workers to dyestuffs, and hence reduced the extent of potential risks.
In relation to the safe use of benzidine-based dyes, the Health and Safety Executive is preparing a guidance note

for publication. This is currently in the course of preparation and, before being published, will be reviewed by the advisory committee on toxic substances, on which employers, trades (unions and local authorities are represented, together with independent experts.
I hope that what I have said will convince the hon. Lady that the Government are concerned to ensure that the health of employees who work with benzidine-based dyes is safeguarded. I trust that she will have formed the conclusion that this subject has been studied in great detail and that the research that has been commissioned shows that there is no complacency about it. The medical and scientific evidence will be kept under review and any new developments will be carefully considered. I am sure that the Health and Safety Executive will take careful note of what she has said tonight, but she may in any event be sure that the views of all interested parties will be fully taken into account when considering all the aspects of the matters which we have debated here tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Twelve o'clock.